Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

MP's and social media.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby atticus » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:07 am

Have you raised your concerns with @jack?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20680
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:51 pm

Not necessarily a reference worth a candle, but an American judge appears to agree with what I was suggesting:

NEW YORK — A judge recommended Thursday that President Donald Trump mute rather than block some of his critics from following him on Twitter to resolve a First Amendment lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald suggested a settlement as the preferred outcome after hearing lawyers argue whether it's constitutional for Trump to block some followers.

"Isn't the answer he just mutes the person he finds personally offensive?" she asked. "He can avoid hearing them by muting them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cB?ocid=st
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:16 pm

How is that relevant? It is a case alleging that the President has infringed the claimants' First Amendment rights - which do not apply here. Specifically, they allege that their constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances, because they cannot communicate with the President via Twitter once he's blocked them. That being so, it is unclear to me how it would be an adequate settlement for the President to mute rather than block them - the President still couldn't see what they'd written, but they'd be completely oblivious to it.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6543
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Mar 10, 2018 10:09 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:How is that relevant? It is a case alleging that the President has infringed the claimants' First Amendment rights - which do not apply here.


The case explores similar concepts to those that we have raised.

Specifically, they allege that their constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances, because they cannot communicate with the President via Twitter once he's blocked them. That being so, it is unclear to me how it would be an adequate settlement for the President to mute rather than block them - the President still couldn't see what they'd written, but they'd be completely oblivious to it.


You are drawing arbitrary black and white on a field of grey. Such lines are not unhelpful, but the test must surely be of what is reasonable.
Is it reasonable to restrict a citizens access to primary information?
POTA has established Twitter as his first point of communication with the world at large: what argument is there that any of his citizens should have any restriction to this?
It is therefore good that they have a mechanism with which to resist the unreasonable.

The question for us is of what is reasonable for us?
We have nobody remotely akin to POTA in this sense: our lines of what is reasonable are very much different, but the principles are similar.

But in any case, does freedom of speech include the freedom to restrict who is allowed to listen?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:08 am

It is a case about a the First Amendment which doesn't apply here and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course an MP can choose to speak to a restricted audience, in the same way that they may choose to address a private meeting, or ask someone to leave a meeting. Blocking someone on Twitter is far less restrictive than that.

Plainly muting doesn't have the same effect as blocking: the former doesn't prevent the user from sending a Direct Message, nor adding the MP to a list, for example. The ability to block a user is key to users' ability to deal with the often hideous abuse to which MPs and others are often subjected.

The OP's suggestion that MPs are prevented from blocking would have two effects: first, many would simply stop using it; and secondly they would resort to other ways of dealing with abusive users - by reporting them to Twitter or the Police.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6543
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:08 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:It is a case about a the First Amendment which doesn't apply here and is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

That they have a written law to cover the point is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it addresses exactly the same issue.

Of course an MP can choose to speak to a restricted audience, in the same way that they may choose to address a private meeting, or ask someone to leave a meeting. Blocking someone on Twitter is far less restrictive than that.


Can you see no distinction between a private meeting and a public announcement?

Plainly muting doesn't have the same effect as blocking: the former doesn't prevent the user from sending a Direct Message, nor adding the MP to a list, for example. The ability to block a user is key to users' ability to deal with the often hideous abuse to which MPs and others are often subjected.


I am surprised that muting does not prevent direct messages, but the default setting is that DM's are only allowed between those who follow each other, so I am not persuaded that that ground holds.
In what other way do you suggest that blocking is such a key?

The OP's suggestion that MPs are prevented from blocking would have two effects: first, many would simply stop using it; and secondly they would resort to other ways of dealing with abusive users - by reporting them to Twitter or the Police.


Curious use of the word "Resort" there. If the complaint is such that it is appropriate to have those bodies deal with it, then it is probably more proper to have those bodies deal with it... Except that AFAIK the Twitter management are completely unaccountable.

What means of prevention are you suggesting?
Would you find it acceptable if, for example @Nigel_Farage began to block all known Muslims?
I imagine not, and I expect no dissent to the suggestion that the law already covers that.

The question on the table is of whether it is wrong for an elected representative to prohibit heckling of his publicly expressed views.
Explain again why you think that it is not.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: MP's and social media.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:14 am

Sorry, but you do not feature on the list of people entitled to order me about.

I think I have made my opinion clear and I see no value in entering into yet another fatuous dispute.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6543
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest