Standing head and shoulders above the privileges enjoyed by our MPs, is the legal immunity against defamation relating to statements made within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster.  It allows them to speak freely without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.

Yesterday the incessant tweets of chief parliamentary twit Julian Huppert from within the chamber came to the attention of the Deputy Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle.

Huppert had twittered “Ah, Andy Burnham’s real agenda leaks out. Simon Hughes, in charge of developing a better replacement, offers to work with him. He refuses.”

Kevin Brennan then complained that this statement was untrue – Andy Burnham had already met Simon Hughes.

The Deputy Speaker, trying to calm matters, initially ruled that MPs could not tweet from inside the chamber. This was later overruled – they can.

Interesting – if an MP, sitting in the house, engaged in parliamentary business, tweets a defamatory remark, is he covered by the ancient privilege of immunity? Is he ‘speaking’ within the grounds of Westminster? Are those who retweet his words ‘republishing a libel’ or are they exempt on the grounds that this was a privileged statement? It won’t be in Hansard. How do we know that the MP was in the grounds of the Palace of Westminster? Do we take their word for it as a gentleman of honour…..

Your thoughts?

JohnRS January 22, 2011 at 07:52

My bet is that it will take parliamentary legal experts longer to decide if
tweets are covered than the lifetime of the technology…..and they’ll screw us
all for fat fees in the process.

Peter January 21, 2011 at 08:37

What a marvelous invention. Members of Parliament can now while away the
rather less interesting moments of another Member’s speech by telling us, well
everything. Come to think of it, why continue with speeches? Why not replace
them with 250 character limited tweets. Just think of the time saved, not to
mention the return of the pithy one-liner. Tweet on, twitter, twitter,
twit.

Peter January 21, 2011 at 01:02

What a wonderful invention it really is. The Guardian reporters entertained
us world wide simply by describing the mundane task of waiting for a Court
door to open. And now, Members of Parliament can while away the rather less
riveting parts of another Member’s speech by telling us, well everything. Come
to think of it, why not replace the speech with a 250 character tweet? Think
of the time saved, not to mention the re-emergence of the pithy one liner.
Tweet on, twitter, twitter, twit.

woodsy42 January 20, 2011 at 20:43

Modern technology only rarely does anything new. Usually it simply enables
things to happen easier and faster. So the question could be rephrased. If an
MP sends a note out from the chamber and a friend posts it on a public notice
board outside in the street or prints it in a newspaper is it covered?

Chris January 20, 2011 at 10:57

Is the Twitter server sited within the Palace of Westminster? No. Huppert
was doing the modern equivalent of bawling out of the window at
passers-by.

This just seems to be yet another extension of the politics of rumour and
insinuation so depressingly prevalent today. I can hardly see the house
roaring “Privilege! Privilege!” en masse in spirited defence of Julian
Huppert’s snide little slur any more than they did in defence of Chaytor,
Morley, et al.

Andrew P Withers
January 20, 2011 at 10:57

Hmmmm
Considering that Parliament is covered live by television, I think
the precedent has been set, if you record anything from the chamber off the TV
or replay it, you are only quoting something that is already in the public
sphere M’Lud

Anna
Raccoon January 20, 2011 at 11:06

The difference being Andrew – that what is recorded is in Hansard……..

Pericles January 20, 2011 at 11:08

I distinguish ‘tweets’ from television :  what you’re
re-publishing in the form of a television recording is what was said in the
forum covered by the privilege.  A ‘tweet’, although theoretically
available to any member of the House of Commons, is issued generally, even
if the fingers that tapped the keys were actually in the chamber at the
time.

ΠΞ

Pericles January 20, 2011 at 10:53

Here’s a first thought, anyway.

The immunity to legal action enjoyed by members of the House of Commons
exists by virtue of their being in the milieu, not of their being in the
building.  Were I having to decide — absent precedent (and new technology
often means that precedent still falls to be established) — I should say that
statements made otherwise than orally in debate in the chamber itself were
not covered by the immunity.

So a normal ‘tweet’, not being issued in the relevant forum, would amount
to a statement published generally and therefore subject to the provisions of
the relevant laws as they apply in the wider World.  Aliter
perhaps in the case of a ‘direct message’, depending on the circumstances.

Logically I should have to treat a ‘re-tweet’ in the same way.

ΠΞ