A Cautionary Tale of Free Speech and Misinformation
Bernadette ‘Bernie’ Spofforth, the highly successful businesswoman, was among the first to use X (formerly Twitter) to falsely identify the suspect in the tragic killing of three girls outside a Taylor Swift dance class as a Muslim asylum seeker who had recently arrived in the UK by boat. As a result, Bernie was arrested and held in custody for 36 hours on suspicion of publishing written material intended to stir up racial hatred and for making false communications. This occurred despite her adding the caveat ‘if this is true’ and deleting the tweet upon discovering it wasn’t accurate. Last month, Cheshire Police confirmed that Ms Spofforth had been arrested ‘in relation to a social media post containing inaccurate information’ and had been bailed ‘pending further enquiries.’ However, Bernie later stated: ‘On September 5, the police issued what’s called an NFA, which means no further action and no charges because I hadn’t done anything illegal.’ She noted that she had ‘just copied and pasted a name’ and, ‘unusually for me,’ did not check the source of the information. Last week, Editor of Country Squire Magazine Dominic Wightman met with Bernie for an interview at a steak restaurant in Chester.
Bernie, you shared a post about the Southport attacker that later turned out to be incorrect. Can you walk us through your thought process at the time and how you reacted once you found out the information was false?
I shared information that was widely circulating online, which I copied from another post on X. I thought it was important to voice my concerns about public safety. I then stepped outside and away from my phone. Once I realised the information was incorrect, I deleted it, as many others did.
Given the seriousness of spreading misinformation online, how do you think individuals should balance free speech with responsibility on platforms like social media?
It’s a challenging balance. Free speech is fundamental, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to ensure the information we share is accurate or properly caveated. I believe individuals should take a moment to verify facts before posting, especially when discussing sensitive issues. However, I also believe that it is paramount that all information be made available and not censored, even if it is uncomfortable for governments. Without the opportunity to debate and discuss, people will inevitably speculate.
You were arrested but not charged for the incident. How did this experience impact your views on free speech and the role of law enforcement in monitoring online activity?
It didn’t change my opinion on free speech at all. We already have laws in place to regulate the wilful or malicious spreading of false information, which I would never do. People must be allowed to openly discuss their points of view. Debate and challenges are vital for societal progression. The broad-brush government approach of monitoring keywords or phrases and the laws proposed to sanction and censor content that governments disagree with should be fully debated and voted upon. After all, this is a democracy.
What were you thinking when the police came to your home?
I went into zombie mode. My husband stepped in and arranged for a solicitor. I literally switched off and was in a state of complete shock.
You spent two nights in a police cell. What were you thinking in there? You must have been scared?
I don’t think “scared” is the right emotion. I felt shattered, almost comatose with shock. I was not afraid of the police or the cell; I was afraid that, regardless of the proof I had provided, I was to be made an example of. I was unable to rest because I had to acknowledge a police officer every half hour, which lasted for many hours. I was only released 36 hours after my arrest.
For a while, it looked like your mistake would be acknowledged as just that—a mistake. But then there was a Twitter pile-on.
I believe there was a concerted effort to try and have me arrested by factions on X. I don’t really understand why they are so aggressive or why they continued even in the face of the obvious, but that is up to them and their own consciences.
What does the term ‘weaponisation of free speech’ mean to you, and how do you see it playing out in today’s political climate?
The term suggests that speech is being used as a tool to target individuals or groups rather than as a means of genuine expression. Today, we see this occurring with differing views on immigration and national security, where simply asking questions can lead to severe backlash. It creates a chilling effect on open dialogue.
Many argue that social media platforms have too much power in determining what is acceptable speech. What are your thoughts on how these platforms handle issues of misinformation and free speech?
Social media platforms hold significant power, and their algorithms often amplify sensational content, which can lead to misinformation spreading rapidly. They need to implement more transparent policies and improve their fact-checking processes while respecting users’ rights to free speech. Again, this is an incredibly difficult societal question. Currently, online platforms are protected under law from being held liable as ‘publishers’. Both the US and the EU are attempting to change that law, which will make online platforms liable for what users say. That will change the entire nature of how these forums work and will push much free speech underground. This has its own dangers.
Do you think governments should intervene more heavily in regulating online speech, or do you favour a more decentralised approach to addressing misinformation?
I believe a balanced approach is necessary. While some regulation can help curb harmful misinformation, it’s essential that it doesn’t infringe on free speech. Misinformation stems from a lack of real information. The way to counter it is to provide information from across the spectrum, not just what the authorities want you to believe. We already have laws protecting against wilful disinformation, and these should be enforced. The new buzzword for governments is “malinformation,” which refers to information that is true but harmful (to the government and/or society). It will be interesting to see how that unfolds and its effect on whistleblowers, for instance.
What do you believe is the most significant threat to free speech in the UK today, and how should it be addressed?
I believe the most significant threat is the chilling effect caused by fear of repercussions for expressing unpopular opinions. We need to ensure that all voices can be heard without fear of arrest or public backlash, promoting a culture that values respectful disagreement. Fear is the biggest threat to free speech—not only from the law but from speaking against an accepted point of view. People are afraid to say what they think, and fear is, of course, the easiest way to control people.
You apologised once you realised the information you shared was incorrect. How do you view the role of public apologies in addressing the spread of misinformation?
Public apologies are vital in addressing misinformation. They show accountability and can help rebuild trust. Acknowledging mistakes also encourages others to be more responsible with the information they share. People need to be big enough to say sorry and put disclaimers on what they post and tweet. If you make a mistake, I believe you should always apologise. There is no honour in not doing so.
Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently, either in sharing the information or handling the aftermath?
Of course, life is always full of regrets. I don’t believe those who say they regret nothing. If I could go back to that day, I would, and I would not have posted it without doing the checking I normally do. Had I done that, then the post wouldn’t have been posted at all. As for the aftermath? I have no idea; I can’t even remember how I handled most of it.
How has your experience with this arrest shaped your future advocacy around issues like free speech and the limits of online expression?
This experience has made me even more passionate about advocating for free speech. It has made me much more aware of ‘disinformation’. Often, I used to just ignore blatant inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Now I challenge more of these, and I suggest others do as well. Opinions are simply that and should be debated, but blatant disinformation should always be challenged. Community notes, when used properly, is an excellent tool.
What would you say to those who are hesitant to express their opinions online due to fear of legal consequences or public backlash?
I would encourage them to express themselves, but to do so thoughtfully and responsibly. It’s essential to contribute to the conversation while being aware of the potential impact of our words. Engaging with others can also mitigate fear, as we find common ground. I would tell them that in this climate, they should continue to be careful. We call it free speech, but it isn’t. It comes at a price; make sure you can afford it! Check your employment contracts and ensure your opinions are based on verified sources and not disinformation.
Do you feel stronger or weaker as a result of the whole experience?
I feel much weaker. I feel targeted and monitored, not only by the authorities but also by those who are determined that anyone with an alternate opinion should be silenced. I believe in our democracy and our justice system, but I am aware that in many instances, the process is the punishment, even when the person is innocent. I don’t know what we can do about that, but we should certainly not try to silence people through fear of cancellation or arrest. Sadly, I think we are only at the start of increasing levels of censorship.
Thanks for your time, Bernie.
Dom, thanks for the steak.