August 2026
First an apology for getting the date of this café wrong in the reminder post.
Asmall group attended with two excellent debates. The first was prompted by the massive fine of $567m imposed on Meta by a court in New Mexico. It follows a previous heavy fine bringing the total to nearly a billion dollars. Meta is appealing. The question the judgement prompted is what are the limits on free speech?
There had also been a book published by Sarah Wynn-Williams called ‘Careless People’ about her time working for the firm. It exposes the shocking lack of interest in the wellbeing of users of the various platforms the sole concern being to increase take up and profits. Two of us had been present at the Hay Literary Festival where she had appeared on stage but was unable to speak or make any facial gesture for risk of being sued by Meta.
Meta claimed it was all for free speech but it did not seem ironically to apply to her.
It was pointed out however, that she would have signed a non-disclosure agreement which meant she should not be speaking about the firm. This prompted a debate about the limits of NDAs. How are we to find out any wrong doing if all ex-employees have to sign one? And what about whistleblowing?
The issue of Harvey Weinstein was mentioned as was Al Fayed. One argument was once it appeared in the press, this somehow made upholding a NDA less plausible. It is not clear that this is a correct interpretation of the legal situation.
Moving on, we noted Shami Chakrabarti’s comment that ‘we do not have the right not to be offended’. This arose particularly in the context of religious comments where criticism can sometimes be offensive to people who hold such faiths. Should there be a limit of gratuitous offence? That is, genuine criticism should be allowed but not purely offensive comments serving no purpose other than to offend, not?
Back to Facebook and Meta and it was suggested that their arguments were disingenuous. They argued they were just a platform not a publisher. They employed algorithms to enable specific ideas or products to be pushed. They were not passive but active in their use of these programs. Influencers were paid to promote products [not by Meta].
Who decides what is acceptable, the question at the heart of any debate about free speech. I am free to speak my mind – you are being offensive.
Israel’s attempt to close down debate was mentioned. The process of calling all critics ‘anti-Semitic’ was nonsense it was claimed since many people in the region were Semites but not Jews.
The debate shifted to a discussion more around those at the receiving end of free speech. Should they not be more critical of what they were being told? There was a need for critical thinking but how common was it? We (in the Café) enjoy looking and debating issues but we are few. Should schools teach critical thinking and discussing ‘algorithms’ for example. It was thought such ideas were being taught. It was noted that media studies degrees have been derided as ‘micky mouse’ by their detractors yet the whole question of what we believe is crucial and at the heart of the debate we were having.
A problem today it was noted was the sheer amount of information and some feel overwhelmed. It was difficult to take it all in and certainly fact checking everything we saw or read was out of the question.
A counter view was that over history, there have been many odd or preposterous ideas and theories: that the earth was flat for example and beliefs in witches which led to many thousands of women being put to death. These ideas are no longer held although how real flat earth beliefs ever were was questioned. We were reminded of Galileo claiming that the earth went around the sun when the opposite was believed and was Catholic doctrine. For this and other opinions and ideas he was accused of heresy put under house arrest for the rest of his life.
One of the problems was that so much of what we understood about the world around us was the product of white males. It was they who seemed to own the media and controlled the news it was suggested.
The way in which ideas were expressed was a factor. Responding by saying ‘I hear what you say’ for example and then expressing a counter view might help sooth debates.
Amnesty International had declared August to be Uyghur Solidarity Month and the local site has several posts on the subject. The point was that for Uyghurs living in Xinjiang there was no free speech at all. Reading a text in their language could result in severe punishment including execution. Whatever the problems generated by Meta and other online platforms, surely it was superior to the extreme repression practised in China.
It was suggested that no speech was free: anything said contained bias, attitudes or opinions of the speaker or writer. It was felt though that the speech was still free and without hindrance, bias or no bias.
It was noted that there are existing and legal limits on free speech. Inciting racial hatred for example or publishing details of how to make a bomb. We seemed to accept that there should be some limits.
We probably did not come to a conclusion on this topic. It is interesting to note the golden days of the early internet and what it seemed to promise have long gone and we worry now about its malevolent effects. Meta’s influence on young girls which prompted this debate for example. One conclusion which underpinned several contributions was the need for critical thinking.
The second debate circled around migration and what should be done about it. The issue of illegal v. legal migration filled the political space at present with both Reform and the Conservatives making policy promises around repatriation this very week. The whole topic raised great passions.
The first observation concerned the large amount of resource spent on assessing whether claims for asylum were legal or otherwise and this could take years.
It was pointed out that a lot of immigration was the result of government policy. Numbers were allowed in from Afghanistan following the war there, many came in from Hong Kong following the Chines clamp down on free speech, and there were many from Ukraine following the invasion by Russia.
The question arose about legal routes and we were not clear on this point and it was thought there weren’t any. [In fact there are many as this link sets out]. One suggestion was to open an office in Calais to enable people to make their claims there before attempting to cross the Channel. 70% of asylum claims were genuine it was claimed.
We discussed the issue of refugees v. economic migrants (an issue which seems to have faded in the last few years). It was sometimes difficult to distinguish. Most who arrive seem to want to work – which they cannot do just adding to the problems – so the distinction seemed a little artificial.
One issue was the question of family members. Those who gained a right to remain often wanted to bring family members which added to the numbers.
Why the UK? emerged as a question. We were never the first country and all refugees would have to have come through other safe countries including France on their way here. English was a major factor since it was a lingua franca (an irony!). Many came from our ex colonies. It was suggested they should be required to learn English which was the case in the US it was pointed out.
But the value of immigrants to the UK economy was seldom spelled out by politicians. Entire industries such as horticulture, hospitality and food preparation could not exist without them. If as some politicians were proposing, they could all be rounded up and deported, supermarket shelves would empty in a week. The NHS could only operate on A&E and maternity without them. Also surprising was politicians who were sons or daughters of immigrants, were the most aggressive in anti-immigrant statements. Danny Kruger for example (some present were his constituents) when he launched his 10 point New Conservative plan all ten of which focused on immigrant measures. His parents came here from South Africa.
It was noted that someone known to a group member who was involved in the recruitment of overseas medical staff, that they were under constant pressure to lower standards and not fully apply the checklist to their applications.
An aspect not considered in the debate was our declining birth rate. We were under the replacement rate. With a greater and greater proportion of older people, companies needed the immigrant labour. It was noted that many British people did not want to do the jobs that were available. The claim of ‘they are taking our jobs’ did not really stack up therefore.
After the war, Poles (and other Europeans) were happily welcomed and integrated into British society (I lived in a street with two Polish and Hungarian families). That attitude seems to have been lost although it was noted above we have welcomed many from Ukraine for example. That we took many fewer than other countries was also not often reported.
Immigrants have become scapegoats it was observed and they seem to have taken over from Europe and Brexit as the go to source of our problems (who next one wonders?). The ‘invasion’ of the Spanish enclave of Ceuta on the African coast was in the news this week which was seized on by politicians of the right not just in this country. The fact that virtually all left to go back to Morocco and that Ceuta is not in the Schengen area received somewhat less attention from the same sources. There were reports that the problem has been used by Russian disinformation sources to foment anti European feelings. It was also alleged that both Israel and the US were acting behind the scenes because Spain has adopted a tough line against the bombing of Iran and will not allow US forces to use their bases in Spain for this bombing.
A final comment was that whatever we are seeing now, climate and water issues will be a significant driver of immigration in years to come.
Two interesting if complex topics. One observation common to both is that both are subject to a lack of in-depth reporting. Ceuta was an example where many believe – or are led to believe – that the 60,000 are well on their way to Calais and will turn up in boats before too long. A lie travels a thousand miles while truth puts her shoes on as the saying goes. A telling remark was that we seemed unable to see people as people.
Next meeting 12th September (promise) at 10:00. We are grateful to Salisbury Library for allowing us to use the space for our debates.
Peter Curbishley
Book mentioned: Careless People, 2025, Sarah Wynn-Williams, Flatiron Books.
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 
Leave a comment