The original heading above and the first paragraph of this page involved references to a Prodigy track and Buffalo Springfield’s For What It’s Worth.1 Then I bottled it. No offence to Bobby McFerrin, but the paragraph lost its cool a bit with Don’t Worry, Be Happy.2
Anyway, it was so we kicked off with a music theme allowing us to continue on that track.
Before I started writing this, I’d never heard a Taylor Swift song. Popular culture and myself appear to mix in different social circles.
Of course, I’d heard of Taylor Swift, though to be honest, based on the way some of the popular media present her, I’d assumed she was a high-class escort, turning tricks for some of the most revered and glorious men the world has ever had the good fortune to host.3
Turns out she’s a singer. And a hugely popular and successful one at that!
Who’d have figured that? Well, yeah, sure you did and perhaps a few billion others.
So now I feel a bit bad that I’m using her as a negative example to illustrate a point. Oh well, life isn’t fair.
Let’s turn to Jack Sweeney, a 21-year-old student in Florida who first came to public attention for a Twitter account that shared information about the movements of Elon Musk’s private jet.4
Initially, Musk, the great protector of free speech, said he had no plans to interfere with the account, though that attitude to free speech for everyone apparently lasted a matter of weeks before the account was banned. A new account has been allowed but with a compromise.5
It turns out Musk’s jet isn’t the only one Sweeney shares data about. Taylor Swift’s jet is also a subject of interest to him and his followers, leading to a cease and desist letter from her lawyers, citing concerns for her safety.
Is that fair?
The data shared by Sweeney is publicly available elsewhere, he’s just republishing aggregated information.
In a world that’s warming and becoming less predictable weatherwise, largely in response to our actions, isn’t it reasonable for all of us to know the identities of those who are making the biggest contributions to this problem?
None of us like looking bad in front of others and isn’t this just a case of one wealthy person using their wealth to try and bully someone they see as much weaker to do what they want them to do?
On 8 December, 1980, the photographer Annie Leibovitz shot a famous portrait of the ex-Beatle John Lennon and his artist wife Yoko Ono.6 Hours later, Mark Chapman also shot John Lennon. Four times in the back. Lennon was dead before he made it to the hospital.
Celebrity stalkers and killers are the exception, not the rule, but shouldn’t we also understand the concerns of people like Swift who worry about their safety?
Yes, of course, we should respect their legitimate wishes for privacy, but in the same way we should respect everyone’s wish for privacy. The same rules should apply to everyone. If the wealthy don’t like someone sharing public information about them, they should work to get the law changed, not go throwing their weight around and trying to pressure people to stop doing something that’s clearly not been proven to be illegal.
If the average American picked up the phone and called their representative in congress, how many do you think would actually get through, rather than being palmed off and told to write a letter or an email? I’d guess almost none of them.
If Taylor Swift picked up her phone and called all 435 representatives, how many do you think would take her call? I’d guess almost all of them.
Unlike most Americans, it would be relatively easy for Swift to get this matter taken up by a few influential people in power. It would take time and ultimately might not achieve everything she wanted, but it’s an option available to those with the most wealth and status in society.
However, it’s a lot quicker and easier to get your lawyer to write a threatening letter and let your influence drive your fans to add further pressure on your behalf.
If that doesn’t work, the wealthy can always up the ante even more.
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation or SLAPP Suits
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, also abbreviated to SLAPP suits are a tool available to the wealthiest in society to limit legitimate free speech.7
It’s in a similar vein to the approach used by Taylor Swift’s lawyer, but taken to the next level. Rather than stopping at the threat of legal action, they start legal action. Now, everyone should have the right to take legal action when they feel that someone has misrepresented them or what they’ve said.
The thing that sets a SLAPP suit apart is the fact that the person or people or company taking legal action know they don’t have a realistic chance of winning the case. They know that the claim against them is true, but they’re prepared to lose money because they know their resources are greater than the person or people they’re targeting.
This is also commonly called lawfare. Using the law as a weapon to beat poorer opponents.
You remember the earlier example of how a $5 million fine for one billionaire was similar to a $30 fine for someone earning the average wage in the US. Similarly, in a SLAPP suit, costs of $100,000s or more might not register for those bringing the suit, but their target may be financially unable to defend themself. They may be in the right, but the wealth of others can effectively remove their right to free speech.
It’s another example of how the wealthiest in society can, to all intents and purposes, operate outside the law in some cases, just by bullying those who don’t have the same privilege of wealth.
For clarity, this isn’t what Taylor Swift’s lawyer was doing, but don’t you think their actions could still be framed as bullying?
Oh and in case you are a die-hard swiftie, this incident was a good example to highlight how the law can be used to pressurise those in society who don’t have the benefit of wealth. I’m not trying to make out that her royal swiftness is a bad person. Taylor Swift isn’t just a person, Taylor Swift is a global corporation. She may never have known the letter to Jack Sweeney was being sent or even now that it was. If I was in her position, I’d have my people doing everything for me. And I mean everything.8
The point is simply that we should all have an equal right to free speech and those with wealth shouldn’t be able to deprive us of it.
They also shouldn’t be able to shut down free speech so completely that they never have to worry about using a SLAPP suit because they blocked any public conversation they didn’t like before it could even happen.
That sounds a bit crazy when I read that sentence back, but that is a legal mechanism that exists in the UK.
It’s called a super injunction.9 A normal injunction can be used to stop the reporting of something within the UK. A super injunction stops anyone from reporting that the injunction exists.
I guess we might have some sympathy with individuals who feel they need a super injunction to maintain their personal privacy. If you or I do something a little bit naughty, we’re unlikely to end up on the front page of a national newspaper or spread across the internet. For someone living in the public eye, it’s a different matter and I think there may be some circumstances where such powers may feel appropriate.
However, it effectively creates a two-tier legal system where the wealthy have access to protections that the rest of society doesn’t. Being a celebrity in the public eye comes with many advantages and privileges most of us don’t enjoy. The counterpoint to that is that they enjoy less privacy than most of us. Life is always a case of swings and roundabouts, and as many celebrities have actively sought out that lifestyle, I don’t have too much sympathy with those who want to have their cake and eat it.
Where we should feel particularly strongly about super injunctions is their use by big businesses to hide their actions and stifle any public debate. Here I think we should have no sympathy with those using them. Assuming there are any businesses using super injunctions. We have no right to know just how many businesses have active super injunctions in place right now, if any.
One of the earliest known uses of a super injunction was an attempt by a big multinational corporation called Trafigura to shut down any public debate about part of their operation allegedly dumping toxic waste in Africa.10
Was that a one-off or are there thousands of such super injunctions in place today allowing the wealthy to engage in actions that may skirt or even cross the boundaries of legality? And are super injunctions only specific to the UK or are there similar mechanisms in place in many other countries?
These are our societies. Regardless of our personal wealth, we all have an equal share in the society we live in. Shouldn’t laws be applied to us all equally?
More importantly though, shouldn’t the laws exist to offer protection to every member of society, not to be used as a weapon by the wealthiest members against weaker members of society?
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80_39eAx3z8 ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEFPLQ_Cofc ↩︎
- I wasn’t sure I might have imagined the negative publicity, so I did a quick google and found I hadn’t. And then, for further confirmation the very first Taylor Swift song I hear is The Man – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvVnP8G6ITs – so there I have it straight from the horse’s mouth. Not that I’m calling Taylor Swift a horse, not with her lawyers ↩︎
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68248168 ↩︎
- https://twitter.com/elonjetnextday?lang=en ↩︎
- https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-annie-leibovitz-perfectly-captured-yoko-johns-relationship ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation ↩︎
- https://twitter.com/DJNiceTits/status/1769197626363154666 ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_Ltd ↩︎