4 ms·

> 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.