Today the Daily Mail has a sad story in which the ex-wife of Christian Voice front man, Stephen Green, explains how he mentally and physically abused his family for many years.

Stephen Green came to fame when the BBC announced they would air Stewart Lee’s Jerry Springer: The Opera. Considered by Green to be blasphemous (and by Christians who can think to be satirical), he vociferously campaigned against the broadcast, and then against the stage show itself, and succeeded in bankrupting the previously successful production. But his real victory was a strong media presence, his name being put at the top of most media outlets’ contact books for matters of Christian controversy. Despite it being abundantly clear that he was an extremist, and despite his organisation repeatedly having been demonstrated to be pretty much just Stephen Green in a mobile home, everyone from the BBC to the tabloid press would seek a quote from him if they wanted to spin a story as conflicting with an imagined version of Christian values. He was guaranteed to deliver, saying something printably outrageous. His ludicrous views would be countered by those affected by the story, and in the publication’s mind some manner of editorial balance had been achieved.

But most interesting is the Mail’s relationship with the man. Their latest story describes Green as a “monster”, a “fundamentalist.” The article goes on to note,

“Stephen was immersed in Christian Voice, which allowed him the autonomy and freedom to express his increasingly bizarre views unchallenged. As its founder and director, he was answerable to no one.”

And just who was it who was letting Green’s views go unchallenged?

Well, take for example this article about student stunt marriages that appeared in a newspaper just fifteen days ago:

“The students’ wedding was condemned by Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, an organisation that represents Christians.”

The story then goes on to quote Green at length, without editorial comment. And which paper is it who let this extremist monster go unchallenged? That would be the Daily Mail.

Two weeks ago he was a man who “represents Christians”. The same paper that today explains that his views were already becoming extreme and unrepresentative in 1992. But their relationship goes back much further.

On the 31st December 2010, the same paper sought council from Mr Green regarding a berserk take on a government site that helps divorcing couples make it easier to manage their finances.

“‘If you draw up a list of things that are important when weighing up whether or not to get divorced, you wouldn’t start with the financial consequences – you would start with your children.’ Stephen Green, of the pressure group Christian Voice, said: ‘I am worried that schemes like this reinforce the idea that divorce is just a natural progression from marriage.”

Says the divorced father of four, who is alleged to have beaten his children with brooms.

“It suggests that divorce is socially acceptable and that’s worrying because financial calculations don’t take into account the emotional cost to children and parents.”

Roll back to the 11th December, and a brilliant daft headline claims that “Stores airbrush Christ out of Christmas cards“. Stores, doing no such thing, instead don’t stock enough Christian-themed cards to sate the Mail’s fevered love of pictures of the baby Jesus. So to whom do they turn for a balanced comment on the matter? Surely not a man who has been known to be an extremist, fundamentalist for at least eighteen years?

“Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, said: ‘The situation is caused by managers subscribing to political correctness and the idea that in some way Christian cards are offensive to other religions. This is simply not true.’”

On the 26th November 2010 a rather inspired primary school had the idea to stage a wedding between two of their pupils, as part of an English comprehension exercise. This disgusted the Daily Mail, who – with impressive imagination – managed to make it a sexual matter. The story, quite brilliantly, maintains throughout that the children were officially married, which is a bold angle. So thank goodness there was someone on hand to go completely unchallenged with his views on the emotional instability of others.

“Religious groups have also expressed their fury at the idea. Stephen Green, from Christian Voice, said: ‘It seems like a really peculiar idea. There is this question about how the idea of being “married” plays in a five and six-year-old’s mind. Marriage is for grown ups and this is a worrying idea to have this wedding for kids in these days when we seem to have the increasing sexualisation of our children. I’m not sure why a teacher is encouraging children to handle these kind of emotions. You have to start thinking what is going on in that teacher’s mind? This is going far beyond teaching children to read and write. There is some sub-text here, and I would question the emotional state of the teachers concerned.’”

On the 13th of the same month, the delightful Quentin Letts was horrified that Bill Bailey had pointed out that the Pope has done little to address the widespread abuse of children in the Catholic church. Fortunately he could turn to a man whose ex-wife claims is experienced in abusing children for a witty comment.

“Stephen Green of the pressure group Christian Voice said yesterday: ‘I feel an act of Christian witness at Wyndhams coming on. Any excuse for evangelical outreach!’”

Back on the 20th August 2010, a story headlined, Gay vicar, 65, to ‘marry’ Nigerian male model half his age (ignoring the bit where he’s no longer a vicar, but hey-ho), detailed how the former vicar plans to marry his partner, 25 year old Nigerian, Bobby. For such a story, who better for the Mail to approach for a comment than a man who has also disobeyed the strict rules of his fundamentalist religion by divorcing and remarrying, indeed to an African 25 years his junior!

“However, the service will not be a blessing, which is forbidden by the Anglican hierarchy for homosexual couples. But Stephen Green, director of campaign group Christian Voice, yesterday described Mr Coward’s marriage ‘an abomination before God’. Mr Green added: ‘Mr Coward is just an emotionally disturbed man trying to inflict his predilections on the rest of the Church. I fail to recognise him as a Christian because he doesn’t keep the commandments of Lord Jesus.’”

He appears again on the 23rd June, to point out how atheists should all be forced to pray and go to church.

“But Christian Voice director Stephen Green said he was appalled to hear of the ban. He added: ‘This is just another example of Christian traditions and values being eroded.’”

In August 2009 the Mail needed expert comment on a scientific matter, regarding “The monkeys that prove babies can be born to THREE parents… and may be the key to halting genetic illness“. Well, you’d want a man who ran a company putting roofs on houses then.

“Stephen Green, director of pressure group Christian Voice, said he had concerns that scientists were going ‘too far, too fast’ and ‘playing God’… When the child finds out they have two mummies, how will they feel?

Oh, and by the way, January 2009 saw the Mail utterly outraged that the Advertising Standards Agency had prevented a Christian advert from presenting complete lies about the cervical cancer vaccine. The completely unscientific claims from a Christian organisation suggested that the HPV vaccine caused infertility. But not directly! Because teenagers were receiving this measure to prevent one of the most deadly, and yet most easily prevented forms of cancer, they’d rush off to have lots of sex and thus contract STIs that then lead to infertility.

“It is simple common sense to realise that with the HPV vaccine, girls will think they are covered against everything, especially if they are on the pill as well, so promiscuity will rise and there will be even more gonorrhoea and chlamydia cases and even more infertility.”

So which Christian organisation was it the Mail allowed to dominate the story, without seeking any expert opinion to balance or challenge the detailed views? Why, it was Christian Voice!

That’s just the last two years. The paper has been seeking comment from Green on every matter they can think of ever since his prominence in 2005. But today it’s all entirely forgotten.

Jan Moir’s spiteful piece (originally titled, “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”) combined that niggling thought that I would contend all must have had on hearing the news of the pop singer’s early death, “But surely something dodgy must have gone on for a 33 year old to just die?” with a second, insidiously unpleasant personal prejudice of hers, “I’ve never trusted those gays. And what they get up to.” An opinion that, of course, is speaking directly to the audience of the newspaper. The Daily Mail has, for the 114 years it’s existed, never been exactly offering a liberal slant on the news. It’s famously the paper that supported Hitler long after it began to seem perhaps a little inappropriate, and hasn’t really improved its attitudes since. The central thought to Moir’s piece, “I always knew those gays were up to no good, and look, it’s got another one of them killed,” addresses the potential homophobia in the paper’s readership. (Astonishingly his death manages to confirm to her that gay marriage is a sham, unlike the near 100% success rate enjoyed by heterosexual marriage.) She then takes this to a new depth by going on to heavily imply (well, even state) that there’s been a cover-up of the real reasons behind his death, and that those real reasons are bound to be something to do with penises and bottoms. (I’m not going to go through the piece picking it apart – that’s already been done splendidly by Charlie Brooker.)

It’s interesting that it’s taken this long for the internet to get involved. It seems that, despite social networking sites and instant messaging having been enormously popular for years, it’s only in the last few months that the critical mass has been such that it has spilled into all-permeating public consciousness. It’s taking a clumsy journey. News websites, both from television and newspapers, are increasingly making claims to portray public reaction to a news story by throwing in three or four tweets from random people that they’ve presumably sourced from a quick-n-dirty search of Twitter. This makes some degree of sense when it’s a story about something happening on Twitter (as was the case today with a Guardian story that happened to pick out a quote by my friend Martin), but is more often thrown in arbitrarily to stories where you’d really prefer that the site simply reported the news at you, rather than telling you what people you don’t know think if limited to 140 characters.

But with this validation comes uptake, and with uptake comes increased validation. Twitter (and Facebook, to some extent, with its ability to create campaign groups) have now become legion, hundreds of thousands of voices retweeting each other to create an unavoidable swell of opinion. It seems impossible to deny Twitter was in a large part responsible for Carter-Ruck backing down from attempts to stop the Guardian reporting on the Trafigura scandal, and now what was pretty standard affair for the Daily Mail – a gay-bashing piece of hate – has been hung out for all to see and be horrified by.

The Trafigura story is farther reaching in terms of its significance, I would argue. An attempt to use so-called “super-injunctions” to prevent newspapers reporting questions due to be asked in Parliament is staggering. The implications of this – that a court did grant such an injunction (does anyone know which judge agreed to this – it seems unavoidably to be Justice Eady, but I’ve not read that it was) is terrifying. And of course the terror digs deeper – Carter-Ruck make a lot of trips to court to garner these injunctions, and they are often granted with the additional ruling that no one may report that the injunction has been granted. It was, in fact, surprising that the Guardian were able to report that they were being prevented from reporting something. Most of these occur without anyone being able to report that they did. But the internet does something rather clever. It doesn’t care, and it doesn’t care on a really big, uncontrollable scale. Anonymous blogs with mysterious IPs print stories, and then they’re reproduced and reprinted and twittered by many thousands – it’s undeletable, and there’s no court in the world powerful enough to stop it. It’s exciting, anarchic. It’s extremely dangerous. I can’t wait to see what it does next.

The Twitter response to the Moir story, while mostly very positive today, does seem to have something more in common with a braying crowd of pitchfork-weilding angries. It seems to develop in three stages. First there’s the awareness raising phase. Here people tweet and retweet the link to the story, with their own comment of outrage. Then comes the reaction to phase one, in which people want to do something about it. Phase three is either setting fire to cars or encouraging others to join campaigns, sign petitions, and file complaints. In today’s case I fully sympathise with the rising voice of anger, and am delighted by the Mail’s need to pull advertising from the original story, the hasty change of headline, and the resulting negative press the hateful newspaper has received. (Although I’m also conscious that publicity is publicity, and it might not have hurt the Mail very meaningfully.) Most of all I’m delighted by the attitude behind the reaction. Even ten years ago I can’t imagine the mass opinion being one of exposing and decrying homophobia.

What interests me is how familiar the reactions are. I think the liberal thinkers, who seem more likely to be early adopters of technology, are now adopting the methods of the illiberal, but I don’t know if it’s subversion or unironic parody. Think about the response to paedophiles back in 2000. As the matter became the cause célèbre for the tabloid press, an undercurrent of mass thinking bubbled to the surface, leading the Sun/News Of The World to publish (inaccurate) photographs and home addresses of convicted child molesters, resulting in literal mobs of torch-wielding vigilantes setting fire to people’s houses and harassing paediatricians. It was grotesque, but it was powerful. These people were motivated. They were organised. They got stuff done. Insane, deranged stuff, but they got it done.

I think Twitter offers the liberal an opportunity for a slightly more civilised braying mob. By the very nature of the non-tabloid press it rarely attempts to get its readership wound up to the point of doing something about anything. The Independent may feebly complain on its front pages about significant issues, but it’s hardly orchestrating marches on Downing Street. The Guardian, who this week have gained a lot of kudos, are equally capable of printing absolute ignorant bilge, as was becoming a more frequent reputation until the Trafigura story. And the Times and the Telegraph are much more interested in helping the comfortable middle classes to remain comfortable and titillated. It’s not until the advent of Twitter that these liberal stories gain attention and traction in a wider consciousness.

Twitter’s had a few lovely achievements. The petition to see Gordon Brown formerly apologise to the late Alan Turing would never have happened without it. The subverting of Daily Mail polls may be absolutely pointless, but it’s still extremely funny to see the paper proclaiming that the extreme majority of its readers have voted in favour of gypsies receiving government benefits. And watching the wretched Carter-Ruck capitulate was a genuine pleasure.

Of course the reactions about what to do about something are not exactly sophisticated. I think there will be misfires to come. I’m not convinced that the Jan Moir incident won’t become one. Much as Fox News in America is currently thriving because of liberal cable television picking on it, papers like the Mail will only get stronger and more determined in the face of an effective enemy. They’ve been hating gay people in their pages for over a hundred years – hating gay people when lots of people get pissed off is so much more rewarding to them. It allows them, and their millions of readers, to feel like a victim. Jan Moir will represent herself tomorrow, and indeed forever more, as the victim of mass bullying. She’s already issued a ludicrous statement in which she described today’s reaction as “heavily orchestrated”. A very clever word to use. There was nothing orchestrated about it – lots of people saw a terrible thing and reacted to it, and some of those people have hundreds of thousands of followers. Hundreds of thousands of people being angry with you at once. Perfect for Moir. These “orchestrated” bullies misrepresented her, and after all, she was only saying what the readers were thinking, eh readers? Eh? (Her response is pretty extraordinary. She quite astonishingly fails to understand why people are so angry, proudly reiterating the same homophobic points while blustering in shock and confusion as to why she might be thought of as homophobic. Also, it’s remarkable that she defends her piece by restating what she believes to be her central points – that they invited someone in for sex, that they took many drugs, and that it was his wild lifestyle that was implicit in his death – as established facts. Despite each of these claims being things she supposes and invents, in the face of contrary evidence or no evidence at all, in the original piece.)

The only real downside to today was the “solution” offered by the loudest voices, such as Stephen Fry and Derren Brown. Both encouraged people to complain to the Press Complaints Commission to point out how the article violated their code. This led to the PCC website collapsing under weight of traffic, but not before 800 or so complaints had been made. (Again, this makes for an interesting subversion/parody of one of the favourite moves of the tabloid press – the organised complaining to official bodies.) But this was the most futile of futile responses. The PCC is a toothless ineffective organisation that frequently fails to offer any useful regulation to the industry. And this is no surprise when you realise that it’s essentially self-governing – it’s rules are defined by the people who run the newspapers. And the chairman of the PCC’s Code Of Practise Committee is Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail. It demonstrates the giant flaw in a communication system that’s limited to 140 characters and is primarily comprised of people reposting what someone more famous just said – unsophisticated and unhelpful reactions can easily take rule. The liberals have a new voice, made up of many parts, but they need to be very careful what it says. How far is the frothing Twitter mass from confusedly chasing Jay Mohr out of his house and town?