From the way this is described it sounds worrying and demonstrates the almost unlimited power of social media platforms to control speech when they want to, without accountability. Twitter should have an independent appeal system like Facebook now has through @OversightBoard
Social media platforms are not public authorities but they mediate public discourse in a way which is a lot like a public authority. They can learn a lot from human rights principles - including balancing between free speech and different social harms.
The Facebook @OversightBoard is certainly not perfect but it at least does attempt to use human rights and other principles to determine whether "moderation" decisions are appropriate or not, which is a start and should be what Twitter is doing too.
What would be interesting is if a media provider like Politics For All sued Twitter and attempted to imply some kind of natural rights/human rights framework into the contractual arrangements between the provider and user. But difficult - which shows the power imbalance.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing about the #Colston4 acquittal the government should see as a warning: criminalising protest you don’t approve of (as is happening through the #PolicingBill) will have the opposite effect you want: politicisation of the courts and juries and more unlikely acquittals
The #Colston4 case was criminal damage so the acquittal was unusual. If the govt criminalises *peaceful* protest as planned, there will be many more arguments of this type, based on the protest being justified and the prosecution unjustified. And the public will sympathise.
In other words, be careful if you wish for peaceful protest to become a criminal issue because the public may not oblige your illiberal intentions.
I don’t know enough about US law but the language of the settlement agreement seems very wide - on its terms would seem to prevent Virginia Roberts from being involved any litigation ever again (which seems... odd) courtlistener.com/docket/6011936…
"other potential defendants" is defined earlier and it means "any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" - which I assume means "in this claim". That's the kind of term you see in settlement agreements. I doubt it goes wider than that
So the legal question is, I assume, whether Prince Andrew could have been included as a co-defendant in the claim by Virginia Roberts against Jeffrey Epstein. No way to know that without seeing the original claim documents, but Andrew was part of the general fact pattern I guess
This is interesting. People are leaving hotel quarantine after Red List emptied - govt telling them not to and that details of "early release" (nb the govt denies this is detention but hey ho) coming later.
There is also this - appears to be an intention to realise. This is legally complicated unless there is a law change - I suppose everyone could be designated a "relevant person" by the Secretary of State who will then direct them to isolate at home. But not straightforward
Actually, I'm not sure the Secretary of State has the power to designate people as relevant persons unless they fall within one of the express categories in Schedule 11 to the regulations. And "the minister has told me I can leave" isn't a listed reason for leaving quarantine
Haven't got time at the moment to tweet the key bits but two really important @UKSupremeCourt human rights judgments this morning:
- Ellan-Cane on non-binary "unspecified" gender on passports (E-C's appeal rejected)
- McKenna on NI Troubles investigation (appeal allowed in part)
Here are the links:
Ellan-Cane: supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-202…
McKenna supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-202…
I haven't summarised McKenna above as I actually don't understand exactly what has been ruled from the press summary! Will have a proper read later
Ellan-Cane includes an important discussion on the "mirror principle", i.e. the extent to which our domestic human rights case law should mirror the European Court of Human Rights case law. Says, I think, UK courts should go no further than ECtHR but there is some wriggle room...