This is a Twitter account associated with a one-time reality show contestant. Presumably he is the one who uses the account, though one cannot be certain. My comments below go to whoever operates the account.
The @MrKennethTong account is self-promotional and, in Twitter terms, fairly popular. At the time of writing it has 17,412 followers.
However, it is not a pleasant account. It is used to relentlessly promote "size zero" body shapes for women and something dangerous and abusive called "managed anorexia". Although one can be sure that the person using the account believes they are exercising free speech, it may well be that promoting such harmful health practices should be prohibited.
But the point of this blogpost is not to ask in some general philosophical way whether the statements published on a Twitter account such as @MrKennethTong should be (or could be) banned.
Instead, there is a particular tweet which causes serious concern.
The @MrKennethTong account often boasts that the author is sufficiently wealthy to be able to do what he wants.
So on 29 December 2010, it was unsurprising that he published the tweet at the bottom of the screengrab below.
The one which followed, at the top of the screengab, is extraordinary and it is the one which causes the serious concern.
Let's go through the exchange slowly.
First, he states that because of his wealth "you can say, do and think anything without penalty, as you have no one to be accountable to". This reads as mere bravado and is unspecific: just a boast of a fool.
The challenge is then made:break the law let's see what happens. It is important here to note the terms of the challenge: it is not "avoid" or "get round" the law. Instead, it is in respect of breaking the law.
When faced with this stark challenge, @MrKennethTong posts a link. This is in reply to the challenge in respect of him breaking the law. The link is also not neutrally posted. The tweeter adds a ";-)" to the end of the tweet.
The link is to a news story which states the supposed author of @MrKennethTong has been cleared of allegations of sexual assault.
What should we make of this response?
Is @MrKennethTong suggesting that the link is an example of him breaking the law "without penalty"?
Is it even an implicit admission of guilt of the allegation of sexual assault?
It is simply not clear.
We can go no further than what @MrKennethTong says on the point. Certainly there is no other information available from which one can infer such a view. I certainly make no suggestion that he was guilty of the original allegations, but I do wonder what @MrKennethTong is suggesting.
If the tweet is not an implicit admission of guilt, and there is some other explanation, it still seems to me to be an inappropriate link to post in that context.
To show off like this being cleared of a sexual assault allegation is, on any view, vile.
The author of @MrKennethTong clearly craves attention, indeed notoriety. He seems to like the negative reactions, the bad things being said.
So he can add the following to his collection.
There is no basis, other than perhaps his tweet, for believing the sexual assault allegations are correct: but his promotion generally of the dangerous and abusive "managed anorexia" - and the boastful tweet of that link in particular - would not make me think any less of him than if the allegations were true.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Posts
22 comments:
Tasteless yes. Legally problematic perhaps. But maybe he was joking. Joking on Twitter.
This is truly disgusting. As an advocate of free speech, this is testing my boundaries to the limit. I would have thought that advocating something so dangerous as anorexia must be at least, in theory, similar to advocating suicide and am not sure that would be allowed?
In terms of the law-breaking, can nothing be done to follow up the Tweet, as it does at the least imply that there are grounds for re-investigation?
You first alerted me to this nasty, nasty man and the number of followers he has does alarm me. I hope something is done because I fear for the potential consequences of his words on some people - I hope they realise what an idiot he is, but Twitter is as accessible to a vulnerable, celebrity-focussed teenager as any other user.
A sad man, for sure.
The author of @MrKennethTong clearly craves attention, indeed notoriety.
Why, then, are you giving him these things? Surely the best way to deal with this idiot (of whom I had never before heard) is to ignore him.
@davidallengreen
Thank you for blogging this in your inimitable way.
I was unaware of this person prior to your post.
It is my opinion that he is vile and dangerous. It is also my opinion that it is a shame he has so many followers. Presumably some, most or perhaps all of his followers also subscribe to his viewpoint.
What a strange world in which we live.
I would hope that any of his followers who do not subscribe to his viewpoint should cease following him and thus stop feeding his vile ego.
I agree totally that his promotion generally of the dangerous and abusive "managed anorexia" - and the boastful tweet of that link in particular - would not make me think any less of him than if the allegations were true.
I say #NoSizeZero
I say no to the vile @MrKennethTong
Just sayin'
"However, it is not a pleasant account. It is used to relentlessly promote "size zero" body shapes for women and something dangerous and abusive called "managed anorexia". Although one can be sure that the person using the account believes they are exercising free speech, it may well be that promoting such harmful health practices should be prohibited."
I have read a little of the shrapnel reaction to this unpleasant
person and consequently blocked his account. My reasons
are numerous but I shall limit my response to three points :
i) Another self-advertiser attempted to launch his career
off the back of a very sick young woman, named Isabelle
Caro. Ms Caro died in the last weeks, from anorexia.
The negative ad campaign which was used did absolutely
nothing to highlight the need for resources for patients
but instead created a fethished body-facist image of a dying
woman.
to be short : utilising tragedy to make a name , or gain notoriety
is imo plain and simple bullying.
ii). I find the pathology of misogony quite unpalatable but evidently
its markettable, and illuminates the sociopathy of this man's audience,
who have nowhere to go with their hatred and mistrust of women.
iii) I am concerned that this account is conceived to upset people
and that they may feel enormously better by just using the block facility,
as I have done.
I am adding here an Isabelle Caro report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/30/isabelle-caro-dies-model-anorexia
evidently , this person thinks that the slow and painful death of women is something that should be celebrated. I'd call it sociopathy
"He seems to like the negative reactions, the bad things being said."
Don't throw him in that briar patch with a starring role in your blog, then.
*sigh* I remember when this wasn't rocket science....
For those who are witheringly chastising the author for giving KT the oxygen of publicity... I went through the same thought process on Twitter, and certainly wouldn't have given him the time of day were it not for the series of three tweets highlighted above.
If drawing attention to those three posts only creates outrage, then there's certainly no point in doing so, I agree. I merely highlighted them because I wondered whether they were significant, whether they were anything over and above unpleasant bragging, whether they were interesting to the police.
A friend of mine who first drew my attention to them actually called the police; they advised him to report it to Crimestoppers. He rang Crimestoppers, and the person on the phone basically said "What's Twitter?" at which point the call was pretty much rendered pointless.
And for others (mainly on Twitter) who are saying it's a fake account, that it can't possibly be real, many signs point to the fact that it is, not least the associated Twitpic account full of cameraphone snaps of him doing various things.
One important point to note about the story is that the alleged offence took place in Scotland. The Scottish system of criminal evidence and procedure differs from that in England and Wales. The Crown will not prosecute an offence in Scotland unless there is corroboration - as Scots law requires each crucial fact to have corroborative evidence. This, regrettably, leads to a relatively low prosecution rate for sexual offences - but is an important safeguard for an accused person to know that there need to be 2 independent sources of evidence for each crucial element of an offence before any prosecution can be taken. In sexual offences there has been debate in Scots law about the extent to which evidence of distress of the complainer, seen by other witnesses, can be sufficiently independent evidence. A confession in Scots law then needs to be backed up with independent evidence. In sexual offences prosecution is more likely where there is similar fact evidence (a chian of conduct) under an evidential rule known as the Moorov doctrine - where similarity of alleged offence in cases can be treated mutually to cooroborate others.
The story linked to in Digital Spy (also reported in the Daily Record and no doubt other Scottish media) appears to relate purely to the corroboration requirement - by reference to the question of there being sufficiency of evidence (suggesting there is no independent evidence for the alleged crime). The nature of one of the tweets you refer to seems boastful about the extent of influence that money has within a system. The story linked to in the other tweet - to me - indicates nothing more than that the alleged offence involving Mr Tong was treated in a similar way to many other alleged sexual offences in Scotland.
Jackofkent.
Wow. Where to start. There is much about the account highlighted that is offensive. However the proanorexia exhortations as you clearly state are not the subject of this blog...
I agree with your reading of the sequence of tweets. The account holder is clearly using the second tweet to justify the content of the first - that wealth means one is effectively above the law.
I find it abhorrent to use an example of a sexual assault claim made against the named account holder that was dropped for lack of evidence,
as proof of the first claim: namely to be so rich as to be answerable to noone for his thoughts words or deeds.
But to follow the link with a ;-) ?
As you are so careful to comment - it is not a verified account.
Not yet, perhaps. I had read the account holder's claim, when I was unfortunate enough to come across it a few days ago, that verification was pending.
Hmmm! I wonder in view of this blog whether the verification will still be welcomed if the account holder is who he claims to be?
It would appear indeed that if this account is administered by who it claims to be, that this IS an admission of guilt - used as an example of him breaking the law and getting away with it.
The news
story was written in an extremely interesting way which I would hope would meant if new evidence came to light the assault claim could be revisited.
Whoever is behind the account appears extremely stupid however, as they are also making claims of a magic diet pill...am sure there's some law against this too?
However a recent claim -with a pic showing them in the same kitchen(!) - to have asked Mr Gordon Ramsey (a chef - dear god!) to support his size zero campaign (Mr Ramsey has I doubt to anyone's surprise denied any such support) has to seriously cast doubt on either the authenticity or indeed sanity of the person behind this vile tweet!
If a joke account - it's not funny. By any stretch of the imagination. If not....oh @mrkennethtong - I think you're in big trouble now!
Correction please - if you do post my comment please could you correct my multiple misspelling of Ramsay (apologies and thanks).
@Anonymous:
This is truly disgusting. As an advocate of free speech, this is testing my boundaries to the limit. I would have thought that advocating something so dangerous as anorexia must be at least, in theory, similar to advocating suicide and am not sure that would be allowed?
I fully share your disgust. However, I can't say I agree with your apparently rather narrow "boundaries" for free speech. If you think that people should be banned from advocating things because they are "dangerous" then I would categorize your views along with the most authoritarian of nanny-staters. Certainly not a "advocate of free speech" in my book.
Let's keep this in perspective. It's not like he did something as serious as threatening to blow up an airport.
There are plenty of people around who post things that cannot be true and state them as true.
RM: " I merely highlighted them because I wondered whether they were significant, whether they were anything over and above unpleasant bragging, whether they were interesting to the police.
A friend of mine who first drew my attention to them actually called the police..."
So, two questions for you:
1) What makes you - or more accurately, your friend, since you didn't actually act, merely thought - any different from the cretin who reported Paul Chambers for a similarly joky and possibly unserious Tweet that you didn't like the look of?
2) It's plain that this man has generated a great deal of heat on Twitter, and is greatly disliked for his views (if he indeed holds those views and isn't merely trolling you all with spectacular success). So had you seen a similar Tweet from someone you liked and admired, or who was popular (Stephen Fry, say?) would you have thought the same? Would your friend have acted in calling the police?
"To show off like this being cleared of a sexual assault allegation is, on any view, vile."
Really?
It couldn't be that he's understandably bitter at being accused of a sexual assault by a woman, and had his name splashed all over the papers (which even for a relentless self-publicist Big Brother contestant can't be welcome), while hers is protected by law, could it?
And so picked something he thought would goad his Twitter tormentors (a lot of whom are women) who are declaring he should have no right to hold his views, and should be hounded off Twitter because of them?
I mean, god forbid the poor sod should feel a need to 'show off'.
No, indeed. He should hang his head in shame forevermore, that a woman used her legally-granted anonymity to drag his name through the mud because she could...
Is Kenneth Tong 'vile'? Maybe.
But the rest of you aren't exactly covering yourselves in glory, are you?
Presumably this is the same loathsome man who threatened to pay someone to 'deal with' a female fellow contestant on Big Brother.
As for denying him the oxygen of publicity, I rather think it's a good idea to publicise his odiousness.
If I hear of him getting any media work I sill certainly be complaining and drawing attention to this blog post.
Crikey!
It rather looks as though this fellow has trodden on the politically correct corns of the consistently outraged and righteous.
Was that perhaps his intention?
For my part I couldn't care less but the more one is prone to cavil at opinions that stray from those of the bien-pensants the more susceptible one is to falling for a wind-up.
I think there is a line between free speech and telling people they are worthless and they need to do these things which will most likely kill them. If somebody does read that and feels bad enough about themsevles and dies ..... can we still say free speach, it's fine? I don't think bullying somebody into death should be free speech. I think he is harassing people and making them feel bad enough to possibly die. I hope he gets sued when that happens.
As an advocate of free speech, this is testing my boundaries to the limit. I would have thought that advocating something so dangerous as anorexia must be at least, in theory, similar to advocating suicide and am not sure that would be allowed?
I think it's quite unlikely an obscure asshole could push someone into outright anorexia. It could trigger a sufferer's neuroses, yes, but so could practically anything related to food/bodies.
@Anonymous:
What about those who encouraged Scott's Antarctic expedition? They were, after all, " encouraging him to do something that would most likely kill him".
Surely the intention is crucial. Malicious speech is generally unprotected even by the US First Amendment. If @KennethTong is making these tweets with the intention that young woken kill or seriously injure themselves, then he perhaps could be liable for such a death or injury. If, on the other hand, his intention is merely that women conform to his screwed up aesthetic preferences, then his speech ought to be legally protected.
"If somebody does read that and feels bad enough about themsevles and dies ..... can we still say free speach, it's fine? "
I can.
Because I can see the minefield you are laying there if you decide that it isn't.
Johann Hari's published a stunning interview with Tong, which appears to have directly led Tong to claim it was all a hoax: http://johannhari.com/
Post a Comment