We are fortunate to live in a society in which freedom of expression is cherished, and protected. That freedom is wide, and includes the ability to shock and offend. Few people would argue against this freedom, or seek unduly to restrict it: least of all me. Yet this freedom has limits and, as with all freedoms, its exercise brings with it countervailing responsibilities. Such limits include the need to avoid defaming or harassing others. 

As is well-known, social media can be a difficult space in which to reconcile the foregoing. The ability to reach a potentially global audience from a phone or laptop, and at the click of a button, means that some views which would previously have been confined to an audience of one are now aired at large. The disaffected may target those with whom they disagree, directly or by way of messaging employers, regulators or law enforcement. All to the good, you might say: after all, the freedom of expression indubitably includes the freedom to criticise. But where one transcends criticism, or rather where one descends into abuse, defamation and harassment: then, we have a problem.

He is a fiercely intelligent, yet quiet and unassuming man

Such has been the recent lot of Dr Michael Foran, a respected academic and expert on equality law. Many — actually I imagine most or even all — of Michael’s recent “correspondents” will never have met Michael. I have. He is a fiercely intelligent, yet quiet and unassuming man. Spend a while in his company and you will be left with certainty that this is a kind, honest and genuine person, for whom equality is both his expertise and his passion.

Yet Michael has had the temerity to express certain views on the law which have angered others. Let me stress that again: this respected legal academic has expressed views on the law. How very dare he.

In response, he has been targeted mercilessly on social media. Spend a few minutes on his timeline on X / Twitter, and you will find accusations of him being biased and reckless; of being an extremist; of being a despicable misogynist; of having gone “insane”. One of the more unhinged responses to a tweet in which he offered a view (again, I stress, on a law in which he is expert) was that his views on the law could result in people being assaulted. Calls have been made to his employer, the University of Glasgow, to discipline him. Some have suggested that the world would be a better place without him in it, and we all know what that means.

Equality law is complex. If any evidence for that is needed, consider the various submissions lodged with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which will in a few weeks convene to decide a question that, a few short years ago, one could barely imagine being posed, let alone needing an apex court to answer: namely, “what is a woman?” Not only is there no easy answer in law to that question (hence it is going to the Supreme Court), the fact that is needs asked and answered at all provokes great anger and indignation from various sides of the debate which rages, seemingly permanently and with ever-growing heat and ever-diminishing light, in the cesspit that is X / Twitter.

There is no need to resort to abuse; to baseless accusations of prejudice; to demands that he be disciplined

Dr Foran seeks — in both my estimation and my experience — to take out some of that heat, and to bring back some of the light. His views are usually expressed calmly and with moderation. I happen to think that he is usually correct, as a matter of law; but — plainly — other views are available. It should surely be possible to express a contrary view by explaining, calmly and sensibly, why that contrary view is to be preferred. There is no need to resort to abuse; to baseless accusations of prejudice; to demands that he be disciplined. Indeed, the suggestion that a legal academic should be disciplined for expressing what I have no doubt is Michael’s honest view as to what the law means is so astonishing that I can hardly believe that I need to say that it is misplaced. 

The torrent of abuse which Michael has faced in recent days has clearly been hugely distressing to him. It has resulted in his employer having to alert security of an elevated risk. None of that is acceptable. None of that is in any way a proportionate response to his attempts to provide assistance to the public as to what various aspects of equality law entail. 

Social media leads some people, often under the cloak of anonymity, to say things which they would never contemplate saying in real life; to engage in online interactions with others which, I have little doubt, they would find embarrassing or even horrifying if they happened “in real life”. There is no need for any of that. It is irresponsible, and it is harmful. 

I appreciate that these words are most likely written in vain. Perhaps I should obey the usual injunction: don’t feed the trolls. But equally, it is important that Michael is actually and perceivably supported by those who deprecate the attacks upon him. And so, this plea: by all means disagree with Michael. But if you’re going to do so, show your workings; and — please — keep it civil. 

In short, be kind. Or at least try and do so. It’s not difficult.