On the third day of his trial, which began on Monday, for the massacre of 77 people in Norway, last July, Anders Behring Breivik began his testimony. One interesting aspect of the case is that Mr Breivik’s lengthy testimony is not being broadcast on television. This is not so much because it is felt that most Norwegians would find his comments disturbing, but really to deny the self-confessed murderer the opportunity to spew his far-right message of hatred and racism to an audience of like-minded sociopaths across Europe and around the world.
Nevertheless, it is feared, as reported on Tuesday, that with the massive media coverage the trial is receiving, Mr Breivik will still have a platform of sorts for spreading his virulent and violent opposition to Islam, immigration and multiculturalism. And in this, the age of the Internet, there seems little point in trying to impose limits.
Indeed, the details emerging so far from Mr Breivik’s own mouth are chilling in the extreme. The more he says, the more one is tempted to think that he is condemning himself as a murderous nutcase. But it is for the court to determine whether Mr Breivik is sane or not and whether he will be sent to jail or to a psychiatric institution.
The deeper problem is that some of Mr Breivik’s opinions appear similar to arguments being put forward by far-right politicians across Europe, concerned about the need to keep Europe white and Christian. He cannot therefore be simply dismissed as an aberration.
The advent of the Internet has afforded the purveyors of hatred with practically infinite possibilities for vomiting vitriol and, obviously, presents new challenges with regard to freedom of expression. Facebook, for example, employs a global network of monitors to try to guard against Internet abuse, including cyber-bullying and the posting of pornographic and obscene material. But the numerous instances of cyber-bullying, whether driven by immaturity, insensitivity or outright hatred, illustrate that a line needs to be drawn.
The recent case of the university student in Wales, jailed for 56 days for tweeting in execrable terms about the cardiac failure and near death of footballer, Fabrice Muamba, is a welcome response to the abuse of freedom of expression. A student in New Jersey was also found guilty, last month, of hate crimes after using a webcam to spy on his gay roommate, driving him to commit suicide. These are but two cases of successful prosecution amidst thousands of cruel, hateful acts of cyber-bullying every day.
Sadly, the Internet trolls are everywhere, in particular, in the social and news media. This newspaper, as our online readers know, reserves “the right to edit/delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity” and we moderate all comments. Some newspapers around the world already require their bloggers to use their real names. Most social networking sites also have rules, though these can be circumvented. In this respect, it seems that the only recourse is to deny the trolls the mask of anonymity that gives cowards the nerve to spread racist, sexist, homophobic and other forms of hatred.
Now, there is the belief in some quarters that freedom of expression should extend to even the most egregious of views, and the apocryphal quotation attributed to the 18th century French writer, Voltaire, is often trotted out in this respect: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The liberal interpretation of this attitude would be that Mr Breivik and his ilk should be allowed to speak, no matter how venomously, and civilised society should be trusted to reject their loathsome utterances. There is every indication that Mr Breivik is being given a fair hearing and he is, of course, not being denied the right to express himself. The widespread revulsion occasioned by his heinous acts and now his testimony would suggest that, as painful as it is, he and those who share his views will be revealed for what they are.
There will always be evil lurking in some human hearts and minds – that has ever been part of the human condition. It is up to society, in acknowledging this verity, to be always on guard, with a commensurate need for rules of behaviour and the rule of law, even as the principle of freedom of expression is upheld within the bounds of decency, ethics and morality.
