It being a PMB makes no difference to the core reason the Lords defers to the Commons - its unelected status (the relevance of manifestos doubtful these days). Curious to see opponents of judicial power arguing it's fine for an unelected House to thwarting the democratic will. x.com/yuanyi_z/sta...

Yuan Yi Zhu on X: "Unsurprisingly the head of comms of @dignityindying is peddling constitutional falsehoods. This is a PMB. It's not in any manifesto. It's not been passed twice by the House of Commons in two consecutive sessions. The House of Lords has no duty to defer." / X

Unsurprisingly the head of comms of @dignityindying is peddling constitutional falsehoods. This is a PMB. It's not in any manifesto. It's not been passed twice by the House of Commons in two consecutive sessions. The House of Lords has no duty to defer.

x.com

Very much looking forward to reviewing both these exciting new books, by Profs Paul Wragg and ⁦@proftomkins.bsky.social‬ respectively!

Great thread, illustrating you can't accurately delineate the protective scope of CDA 230 shielding platforms from potential liability for the content they host without knowing the First Amendment caselaw that determines when such content can and can't generate liability in the first place.

Ari Cohn@aricohn.com · last yr.

I don't know how many times I have to say it: Section 230 is ultimately irrelevant here. Without it these claims would still fail. Imposing liability for transmitting protected speech because the recipient later committed a crime would violate the First Amendment. www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/c...

It's very hard to say whether it's the Chagos Islands or the 'Brexit reset' that has produced more frothing hysteria from the rightwing commentariat. Either way it's been both amusing and slightly surreal to witness.

Unfortunately being grossly offensive online *is* a crime: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/2... The last Govt should have asked Parliament to repeal this offence when the Online Safety Act was passed. It didn't & police enthusiastically enforce it. thetimes.com/uk/crime/art... x.com/Jacob_Rees_M...

Jacob Rees-Mogg on X: "Advocates of free speech must defend Lineker’s tweets from this type of investigation; being offensive is not a crime. https://t.co/saLP2EsPj8" / X

Advocates of free speech must defend Lineker’s tweets from this type of investigation; being offensive is not a crime. https://t.co/saLP2EsPj8

x.com

This promises to be a great collection.

David Mead@seethingmead.bsky.social · last yr.

I shall be guest editor of Public Law’s Special Analysis section next spring: “The Public Order Act 1986 at Forty” Really looking forward to curating pieces by: @crwerren.bsky.social on policing public order @deanknight.bsky.social on NZ recent proposals @katrinanavickas.bsky.social looking at

I recent read this forthcoming book by @nataliealkiviadou.bsky.social taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/1... It's a really forensic and detailed critique of the often unprincipled and illiberal caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights on hate speech. Essential reading if you're writing in the area.

Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights | Natalie Alkiviado

This book argues that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should reconsider its approach to hate speech cases and develop a robust protection of freedom

taylorfrancis.com

I was Robert's supervisor for the thesis, but he's done a huge amount of work on it since. So v much forward to reading what will be a key work on the royal prerogative. (Which will of course set the cat amongst the common law pigeons). Book launch Bristol 3 July www.bloomsbury.com/uk/royal-law...

Royal Law

This book argues that prerogative powers encompass all the non-statutory powers of the Crown. Hence the Crown has no 'third source' powers, common law powers or…

bloomsbury.com

@stevepeers.bsky.social @paolosandro.bsky.social hi both - recommends for others to follow here? Just arrived!