PSNI says social media corporations ‘should be forced to remove offensive comments by law’

A woman using her phone under a logo of the social media giant Facebook; the PSNI wants bodies like Facebook to be forced to take down 'offensive' things

Despite this, the PSNI also declared that free speech is a “basic human right” which is deserving of legal protections.

The comments are all to be found in the police’s response to Judge Desmond Marrinan’s hate crime review, which closed for consultation at the end of April.

The judge is currently mulling over whether the reach of “hate crime” law should be expanded in Northern Ireland.

His consultation paper invited the public to comment on various ethical and legal matters, including things like whether ‘gender’ or ‘homelessness’ should be made into protected characteristics in hate crime law.

The judge asked whether a clause within GB law which protects “discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions” – as well as “discussion or criticism of sexual conduct” – should be considered for incorporation into the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which regulates “stirring up hatred or arousing fear” in the Province.

The police responded saying: “Consideration should be given to adding this defence as freedom of expression is a basic human right, within the law.”

And in answer to the question “do you consider that there needs to be any specific provision protecting freedom of expression?” the PSNI responded: “Yes, as this is a basic human right, with the law.”

However, the consultation also asked this question: “Should social media companies be compelled under legislation to remove offensive material posted online?”

The police responded: “Yes. This consultation paper highlights the significant and lasting harm caused by online abuse.”

No definition was given of exactly how (or who) will define what is or isn’t “offensive”.

The News Letter has been seeking to obtain the PSNI’s response since spring; the press office refused to send it, and instead required the paper to go through its Freedom of Information department – a process which takes much longer.

Even so, the News Letter was supposed to receive the document in 20 days; in the end it took two months.

As to whether “gender” should be specifically protected under hate crime law (making someone eligible for a longer sentence if the crime was motivated by hostility to women, for example), the PSNI responded by saying it is hard to know “what making a category as wide as gender a protected characteristic would achieve”, adding that there was “no consensus” on the matter.

The terms “transgender” and “intersex” should be protected, they said.

And as to whether “homelessness” should be a protected category in hate crime law, the PSNI said: “It is not evident that there is sufficient numbers of incidents happening to suggest this needs to be specifically legislated for”.

Other groups such as the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland had already shared their responses to the hate crime consultation with the News Letter.

Whilst the Presbyterians voiced concern about Christians’ right to freely express their religion, the Church of Ireland was much more ambivalent about protecting free speech.

Read more on the Marrinan review (which the News Letter has been covering in far greater detail than any other media):

An internal body within the Church of Ireland has declared that male and female are not the only two genders

Hate crime review: Presbyterian Church calls for guarantee that quoting the Bible will not be illegal