Luciano Busuttil is blocking tweets from electors whose views and criticism he does not like. While Saviour Balzan’s blocking of critics tells us that he has no sense of humour, a fragile ego and a poor attitude towards freedom of expression – nothing we didn’t know already and traits which make him unsuited to the job he does – he is a newspaper proprietor and columnist and is not accountable to the electorate. It would be a good idea if he were to hear people’s views because he is in the business of driving up sales of his newspaper and selling advertising to keep it going, and listening to customers and prospective customers is worthwhile. Luciano Busuttil is, however, a different matter. He was elected to parliament by popular vote. He is accountable to the electorate and to all electors, whether they voted for him or not. In addition to that, he holds other public office and receives remuneration through public funds beyond what he receives for serving as a member of parliament. However critical or insulting the responses he receives to his tweets, he should neither block them nor respond in kind. As a matter of principle, people should be blocked only for slander involving third parties, really foul language (not commonplace expletives) or serious threats. Slander involving himself only should be responded to and not blocked. Very often in these cases, the person saying any such thing really believes it and that is an indication that many others do too. Rather than sticking your head in the sand about it, you should just set the record straight. Bottom line: blocking people looks bad. At the very least, it makes you look like a bad sport. At worst, it is an insult to those whose vote you want. Or are you telling them that you know you can’t get their vote because they’re not suckers?
Posted on: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:11:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015