Prof Paul Bernal Profile picture
Sep 10, 2020 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
A very short thread on the suspension of Vance - well, not on him as such, but related. I follow lots of people on here, and take glances at a whole lot more - including people I disagree with massively. I never followed Vance, but I saw his stuff regularly. 1/n
I see stuff from people I disagree with politically. I see stuff from people I disagree with morally and ethically. I follow people who detest each other and quite regularly get asked ‘why are you following X, they’re a xxxx’, in some key subject areas. 2/n
Sometimes it’s really important to listen to voices you disagree with, and to hear political views and perspectives very different from your own. I do this actively and deliberately. Sometimes, though, it’s thoroughly poisonous. 3/n
...and some things aren’t just ‘opinions’ or ‘perspectives’, they’re something much more dangerous and harmful. The stuff Vance puts out was like that. Damaging not just in theory but in practice. 4/n
It’s not about being ‘snowflakes’ or being ‘offended’ in any real way, it’s about actual harm. Is this something ‘we’ should ‘tolerate’? This is not easy at all. Who gets to decide? Who says what is ‘acceptable’? The government? The social media companies? 5/n
I wouldn’t *in general* trust governments or social media companies as far as I could throw a battleship. The ‘Online Harms White Paper’ which effectively carves up the governance of free speech between the governments and the social media companies is abysmal 6/n
*But* that doesn’t mean nothing can or should be done. If we do nothing, we get the nastiest, loudest, angriest and most manipulative people ‘winning’. So what do we do? The most important thing is to say that there’s no easy answer. 7/n
This is bloody difficult. That means treading carefully, being ready to change the way you do it - but bold enough to do things. I think suspending (and then banning) people like Vance (and Milo, Hopkins etc) before them is likely to ‘work’ in terms of ‘cleaning up’ Twitter. 8/n
...but we need to be very, very wary of where this is taking us. It’s not an easy or perfect solution.... /ends

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PaulbernalUK

Jul 7
A few points about Starmer’s majority on a small vote share - and a comparison with Johnson’s situation in 2019. First thing to remember is that *as of this moment* it doesn’t matter how many votes they got, but how many seats. 1/7
That’s the problem with FPTP - a seat is a seat is a seat. In terms of governance, that means Starmer’s position is incredibly strong. He can basically do what he wants - just as Johnson could do whatever *he* wanted. 2/7
That i puts the emphasis on what Starmer actually does. There’s the rub. How did Johnson turn a massive majority into a crushing defeat? By governing abysmally. By being corrupt, incompetent and dishonest. He couldn’t fulfil his promises - because his promises were lies. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
Jun 17
I have a little theory about Sunak. There are many reasons he’s in the mess he is, but one of them is his decision to go ahead with the Rwanda Scheme. He had a chance to step back from it, to abandon it. Instead he chose to push it. 1/4
He knew it was batshit. He knew it was unworkable. He just thought it would resonate with the nutters and the racists, and give him credibility with the far right. With the GBeebies audience, with the Braverman fans. 2/4
The trouble is, its failure to function was then on his hands. The nutters and racists still don’t like him, and its failure gave Farage (and Braverman) room on the right. The Overton Window is shifted, and the last remnant of Tory ‘competence’ is extinguished. 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Jan 31
A few small points on ‘serious harm’, which was the crux of the Laurence Fox defamation actions. Firstly, the requirement for serious harm was added in the Defamation Act 2013 - the most recent reform of defamation law. 1/6
It was brought in specifically to make it harder to succeed in a defamation action. To stop trivial cases from succeeding. To help free speech. It adds an overall requirement before you even look at the words at issue. 2/6
The act says ‘A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.’ There are two parts to this. Is the harm ‘serious’, and did the statement ‘cause’ it. Both have to be shown *by the claimant* 3/6
Read 7 tweets
Nov 28, 2023
A short and somewhat simplified thread on defamation law and the Laurence Fox case - and why it’s currently proceeding as it is. There are a number of key issues about the way the law works that need to be understood. 🧵 1/12
After Fox’s appearance on BBC’s Question Time in 2020, a number of people called him a racist on Twitter - and he responded by calling them paedophiles. They sued him for defamation for saying that, and he counter sued them for calling him a racist. 2/12
To count as defamatory, since the Defamation Act 2013, a statement has to cause ‘serious harm’ - which is why we’re hearing Fox describing all the jobs he’s lost as a result of being described as a racist. Significant loss of income would count as serious harm. 3/12
Read 12 tweets
Oct 31, 2023
A question for @peston, @bbcnickrobinson, @bethrigby, @bbclauraK and other members of the ‘inner circle’ of political journalists. (Short thread) 1/6
As the COVID inquiry has gone on, it’s become increasingly evident that what was going on in Number 10 Downing Street was chaotic and disastrous in pretty much every way 2/6
What’s more, it’s clear that the chaos and disaster came from the top - and from the character and nature of Boris Johnson directly. You, and the rest of the inner circle clearly knew this - and knew his character and why this was inevitable. 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Jul 23, 2023
Once upon a time there was a man who played golf rather well. He had a handicap of two. A golf club, exclusively for people with handicaps less than five, let him join. He was a bit of a tool: rude, boring, nasty about other members, but his game was good enough… 1/4
…and kept up the club’s standard well. After a few years, his standard declined - maybe it was the beer, maybe his age was catching up on him, maybe his sacking of his coach for being a foreigner, but for whatever reason his handicap went up and up. 2/4
And when the latest set of scorecards came in, his handicap was going to be ten. The club held a committee meeting - they regularly did - and his membership came up for review. He’d just had a particular bender and ranted about everything in a loud, angry voice… 3/4
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(