Freedom of speech or incitement to mass gender-based violence? The rise (and fall) of Andrew Tate

On the 29th of December 2022, notorious TikTok influencer Andrew Tate was arrested in Bucharest, on charges of human trafficking and rape. Comically, the arrest was a result of an online feud with climate activist Greta Thunberg, in which a pizza box revealed his residency in Romania – ultimately leading to his arrest[1]. Whilst the intention of this post is not to express my idolisation of Thunberg, her response to Tate’s arrest remains, quite possibly, to be my favourite Tweet of all time.

Prior to his arrest, Tate was provoking momentous discourse surrounding gender roles and identity, specifically on the social media app, TikTok. He recurringly expresses the notion that a woman’s role is as a homemaker, and has stated that women ‘can’t drive’ and are ‘a man’s property’. Tate has also described himself hitting and choking women, but denied allegations of abuse from his ex-girlfriend, whom he deemed a ‘dumb hoe’.

With the majority of TikTok users being aged 10-19[3], impressionable young people are widely exposed to Tate’s specific brand of misogyny. Young boys are provided with an image of ‘idealised masculinity’: Tate drives sports cars, boxes, smokes cigars, and seemingly has women (or ‘females’, as he refers to them) dropping at his feet. In order to achieve this lifestyle his followers are likely to adopt his mindset, thus putting women at risk. This begs the question: is censorship acceptable when content may incite violence?

Whilst there is ample political theory to be considered in the free speech debate, I find that many theoretical frameworks do not account for the complexities of the free speech debate in the current digital epoch. For example, philosopher JS Mill offers the harm principle for free speech in his paper ‘On Liberty’, which states that speech which incites physical harm to certain people should be restricted[4]. Many would argue that as he never specifically entices his audience to commit violence against women, his content does not fulfil the harm principle, and therefore shouldn’t be curtailed. Mill’s article was, however, published in 1859, and therefore does not account for the rapidity of content spreading on online platforms, and how an impressionable audience will likely take Tate’s content literally.

I ask instead that people consider the effects of social media content, such as Tate’s, in a real-life context. Imagine being a woman and getting told you must ‘bear responsibility’ for being raped. Imagine being a part of the gender who have been campaigning for individual liberties for centuries, only to be told ‘you are a man’s property’. Imagine the effects of misogynistic content creators and their following on your children. We evidently still have a long way to go in the fight for gender equality. And if eradicating certain content is seen as a limitation on free speech, I am happy to be on that side of history.

[1] Andrew Tate: 'influencer' who sparred with Greta Thunberg arrested (2022) Euronews. Available at: https://www.euronews.com/2022/12/30/andrew-tate-influencer-who-sparred-with-greta-thunberg-arrested-in-romania

[2]  The Press Association (2022) Andrew Tate arrest trolled on Twitter by Greta Thunberg, Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-30/greta-thunberg-suggests-twitter-spat-inadvertently-led-to-andrew-tate-s-arrest#xj4y7vzkg

[3] Shepherd, J. (2023) 20 essential TikTok statistics you need to know in 2023, The Social Shepherd. Available at: https://thesocialshepherd.com/blog/tiktok-statistics#:~:text=TikTok%20is%20Most%20Popular%20With%20Younger%20Generations&text=Ages%2010%2D19%20are%2025,49%20is%2020.3%25%20of%20users.

[4] Mill, J.S. (1859). JS Mill:' On Liberty' and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press.