I'm really hoping that the courts will clarify that the point at which a legal regulator is entitled to limit our freedom of speech is sky high. The idea that you can be sanctioned for posting something that is lawful is quite wrong. And has the chilling effect we see here. - ThreadSky

giffordhead.co.uk • 136 days ago

I'm really hoping that the courts will clarify that the point at which a legal regulator is entitled to limit our freedom of speech is sky high. The idea that you can be sanctioned for posting something that is lawful is quite wrong. And has the chilling effect we see here.

Reposted from Colin Yeo

Good post. Lawyers can (and I would argue should) still post on social media. But knowing the regulator is watching over our shoulder removes the spontaneity that made it fun for a while.

Comments

charlierad.bsky.social•136 days ago

But one does have to consider both judiciary bias and the perception of any such bias

Social media opens a whole can of worms on the latter…

charlierad.bsky.social•136 days ago

Sorry, that sounded like a law student response (a lofty height I’ve never made it to!)

I had to look up a case I’ve founded helpful in the past regarding the “objective judicial mind”: Ansar 2006 at the COA, which quoted Burton in the original judgment:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1462.html

giffordhead.co.uk•136 days ago

I think judicial bias is something quite different. As lawyers, we should have no less entitlement to free speech than anyone else. Trying to unpick the arrangement for judges is harder, I accept.

charlierad.bsky.social•136 days ago

Indeed.

Two aspects that could have significance, in some cases:

(1) the online relationship between lawyers and judge cold be significant, and

(2) some lawyers act as, for example, tribunal judges

giffordhead.co.uk•136 days ago

I'm also not convinced about the new rules on judges using social media which seem to prohibit politicians who are fee paid (≈ part time) judges from posting about politics.

Plus anyone writing a critical article of any legal decision.

clairebradley.bsky.social•136 days ago

My understanding was that there was a judge fairly recently that was disciplined for posting blatantly transphobic content on Twitter and so I suspect that this latest guidance is a response to that. I think the concern was that the impartiality of the judge could be questioned under those circs.

paolosandro.bsky.social•136 days ago

Who?

clairebradley.bsky.social•136 days ago

Can't remember their name. But I remember reading about it.

juliedoughty.bsky.social•136 days ago

it was a response to a Linked In 'like' subject to reprimand apparently. Topic was Gaza; the 'like' was accidental. I don't use Linked In, but isn't it popular with legal practitioners? tricky to avoid?

clairebradley.bsky.social•136 days ago

I think that is a different case. The one I'm thinking of called a trans activist a range of insults (and had identified they were a judge) and also called a pro Palestinian activist anti-Semitic and a racist, and they were sanctioned for failing to uphold the standards of the judiciary.

giffordhead.co.uk•136 days ago

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut seems to be a bit of a problem with this guidance. I think the first lot from the early 2010s was thought of as being aimed at closing down a couple of blogs, including some quite interesting and innocent ones.

clairebradley.bsky.social•136 days ago

Agreed. I don't think that judges should be discriminatory or abusive on social media and whilst I get that this guidance is trying to address that, which is reasonable, it goes too far in other respects. So, I think further refinements are likely to be necessary in order to make this guidance work.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply