3 ms·

The idea that a member of parliament should enjoy at least a a much freedom of speech over private media as the broader public actually deserves some challenge.

The idea that a member of parliament should enjoy at least a a much freedom of speech over private media as the broader public actually deserves some challenge. In the UK tradition, political speech in the private sphere is somewhat tightly regulated. As an MP he can’t buy advertising space on terrestrial TV; during election cycles if he is featured on TV the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponents; there are strictly limited amounts of time permitted for ‘party political broadcasts’ and they are allocated to all parties equally. So the precedent in UK law is not that MPs have unfettered access to broadcast their private speeches. Quite the opposite. As a member of parliament he does enjoy parliamentary privilege, and the ability to put his views on the permanent public record of Hansard by delivering a speech in the Commons. That should give him quite enough of a soapbox. It certainly doesn’t entitle him to oblige a private entity to carry his speech without comment - and any legal regime which required such a thing would be dangerously authoritarian. When political campaigners show up at a radio station and demand to be put on the air, we don’t call that ‘normal exercise of free speech’, we call that ‘the first step in a coup’.

torstenvl 5y ago
> the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponents Um. This is not the rebuttal to the MP's position that you think it is.
- jameshart 5y ago
  It might not be intended to be the rebuttal you are assuming it is. I’m not saying that British law broadly sets a precedent of requiring equal treatment of contrasting political views. It absolutely does not - look at the UK newspaper opinion pages. I am mainly responding to the ‘if they’ll do this to an MP they will do it to you’ syllogism, which seems to rest on the underlying assumption that an MP has at least the same speech rights (on a private website) as a member of the public - when in fact the ability of an MP to oblige a private company to carry their speech is expressly limited. I am arguing that the fact he is an MP does not entitle him to special treatment and indeed historically brings his speech rights under greater scrutiny. My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed, and in fact are more restricted by current law in that respect than people who are not MPs or parliamentary candidates.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed I don't read the MP's objection to YouTube as expressing the position that he has the right to speak unopposed. I read the MP's position as objecting to the idea that his opponents have the right to speak unopposed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

torstenvl 5y ago

> the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponents Um. This is not the rebuttal to the MP's position that you think it is.

jameshart 5y ago
It might not be intended to be the rebuttal you are assuming it is. I’m not saying that British law broadly sets a precedent of requiring equal treatment of contrasting political views. It absolutely does not - look at the UK newspaper opinion pages. I am mainly responding to the ‘if they’ll do this to an MP they will do it to you’ syllogism, which seems to rest on the underlying assumption that an MP has at least the same speech rights (on a private website) as a member of the public - when in fact the ability of an MP to oblige a private company to carry their speech is expressly limited. I am arguing that the fact he is an MP does not entitle him to special treatment and indeed historically brings his speech rights under greater scrutiny. My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed, and in fact are more restricted by current law in that respect than people who are not MPs or parliamentary candidates.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  > My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed I don't read the MP's objection to YouTube as expressing the position that he has the right to speak unopposed. I read the MP's position as objecting to the idea that his opponents have the right to speak unopposed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.