On Speculating About Speculation

[danieldwilliam]

Speculation rages on twitter about the identities  of the two political figures at the centre of revelations about an affair which has said to have stunned the Prime Minister and rocked Downing Street.

I say rages – a few dozen tweets.

A few brave individuals (1) have even gone as far as to name two potential figures (2).

Generally I’m not that interested in the sexual relationships of politicians (3) – unless they are exposing themselves as hypocrites I fully expect them to behave much like other people and, whilst I don’t exactly approve of adultery it doesn’t particularly affect the ability of the people involved.

But in this case I think it might.

If we ever find out.




(1) utterly stupid in the light of the MacApline – Bercow case

(2) including one wag who suffixed his tweet of “If it were X and Y that would interesting.” with  *innocent face* clearly not having grasped the implications of the Bercow decision or the Attorney General’s recent note on the applicability of the contempt of court for cases sub judice

(3) as distinct from sexually harassing folk. Or sleeping with someone connected with Russian intelligence.

Comments

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

It's remarkable just how thoroughly, and easily, Twitter has been silenced on this by the show of force on MacAlpine.

[andrewducker]

"As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

(Or realised that *gasp* the law applies to the internet.)

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

If only we lived in the wild west.

Not a bad thing - more people will be exposed to how biased our libel laws actually are.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Or the law applies when the law is enforceable.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

I think UK libel laws are deeply wrong but I'm also not sure that having the internet speculate incorrectly about someone's love life is right either.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

For some reason I mind it less on the internet than in the newspapers.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Do you know why?

[andrewducker]

I vary. Twitter strikes me as being more like people chatting down the pub than something people might mistake for accurate reporting. Whereas newspapers have a stamp of authority. If I say to you "I hear that SamCam and KateMid are having an affair!" then that's clearly gossip. Put it on the front page of the Guardian and it gathers weight and affects people's perceptions.

Of course there are many websites that fall somewhere in-between, where some people will take that seriously, and assume that "They wouldn't report it unless it was true."

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with you on the equivalence of twitter and the pub.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

What he said.
With the addition that I expect organisations to be regulated, and individuals less so. This isn't a minor point - damages seem to be awarded in the same amount against individuals and, say, News Corp, and I don't like that much.