Is there really any point to banning tweets on election day?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Is there really any point to banning tweets on election day?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#154679 4-Nov-2014 11:49

I read in the Herald that various people - sportsmen, apparently - have been referred to PC Plod for sending remarkably innocuous tweets on election day.

As far as I recall, there is no such law in the UK and I do not recall any evidence that the electoral system was any the worse for that. I'm sure no such rule exists in the USA either.

It seems an immensely pointless rule in the modern age. Why do we have it still?

1 | 2 | 3

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1168362 4-Nov-2014 11:50

heck yeah a tweet from an ex All Black has universal influence and can skew the results rending the election invalid..... then we wake up. :P

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1168411 4-Nov-2014 12:56

More to the point- should we have an election day? So many of us voted early and tweeted politics on the day that the law banning campaigning on one day is irrelevant now. We had an election month during which it was illegal to campaign on one day.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168426 4-Nov-2014 13:13

I vote for voting with smartphone finger print sensor

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#1168432 4-Nov-2014 13:20

joker97: I vote for voting with smartphone finger print sensor

Then one party can win by a nose!

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#1168433 4-Nov-2014 13:21

Elpie: More to the point- should we have an election day? So many of us voted early and tweeted politics on the day that the law banning campaigning on one day is irrelevant now. We had an election month during which it was illegal to campaign on one day.

Agreed. But TBH I think the parliament should be focusing on other more important issues with its finite time!

Speedtest 2019-10-14

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1678

Lifetime subscriber

#1168457 4-Nov-2014 13:46

Election day should remain advertising free.

I as an individual am not allowed to go round and hand out fliers telling people how to vote or that I'm mates with prime minister.

Twitter posting is the same thing, argueably more powerful in that some famous people have very large followers , more so than would listen to a radio ad.

Why would someone make a political posting if not to raise the profile of a party.

The power of famous people to push brands is well known.

Look at how much businesses pay sportsman to be associated with their brand.

Just like people will buy addidas because Jonah wears them, a similar force would happen with political parties.

So charge them, smack them on the hand and set the precedent that twittering counts as advertising ( as #macdonslds, #KFC etc)

A.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1168466 4-Nov-2014 13:54

afe66: Election day should remain advertising free.

I as an individual am not allowed to go round and hand out fliers telling people how to vote or that I'm mates with prime minister.

Twitter posting is the same thing, argueably more powerful in that some famous people have very large followers , more so than would listen to a radio ad.

Why would someone make a political posting if not to raise the profile of a party.

The power of famous people to push brands is well known.

Look at how much businesses pay sportsman to be associated with their brand.

Just like people will buy addidas because Jonah wears them, a similar force would happen with political parties.

So charge them, smack them on the hand and set the precedent that twittering counts as advertising ( as #macdonslds, #KFC etc)

A.

However since you can do all those things every day of the 3 years between elections, what's the point or value in not allowing it on one day?

What does it gain us that countries without the restriction do not have?

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#1168467 4-Nov-2014 13:54

Or we could just ban politicians

JarrodM

978 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152

#1168469 4-Nov-2014 13:58

Either way I don't think it is appropriate for John Key to give character references for the people who have been referred to the police.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#1168508 4-Nov-2014 14:20

The purpose of banning tweets is to stop others influencing your vote. Its amazing that for a good 4 months prior everyone conveniently fails to notice the media do exactly that.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1168510 4-Nov-2014 14:22

JarrodM: Either way I don't think it is appropriate for John Key to give character references for the people who have been referred to the police.

And I'd argue it's also not appropriate for a political party or it's supporters to be referring only those who tweeted/posted/advertised to the police. That's the inevitable conclusion one must draw from the fact that all the reported cases today involve people who professed support for National, is it not?

The other conclusion to draw, extending from the first one, is that said party/supporters are sore losers, and act like spoilt children when they don't get their way. Pathetic. Time for them to grow up I say.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100
Inactive user

#1168528 4-Nov-2014 14:40

markl:
JarrodM: Either way I don't think it is appropriate for John Key to give character references for the people who have been referred to the police.

And I'd argue it's also not appropriate for a political party or it's supporters to be referring only those who tweeted/posted/advertised to the police. That's the inevitable conclusion one must draw from the fact that all the reported cases today involve people who professed support for National, is it not?

The other conclusion to draw, extending from the first one, is that said party/supporters are sore losers, and act like spoilt children when they don't get their way. Pathetic. Time for them to grow up I say.

Nice attempt to pin it on the opposition, but the people who referred the matter to the police are the Electoral Commission, who monitor things like social networks and media during the day of the election.

Key making public statements on the guilt or innocence of people is inappropriate, full stop. These are people who might actually have a trial, be convicted, and be fined up to $20,000.

Mind you, anyone who takes voting advice from rich men who get paid to be hit in the head for 80 minutes once a week needs their head examined.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1168533 4-Nov-2014 14:43

ckc:
markl:
JarrodM: Either way I don't think it is appropriate for John Key to give character references for the people who have been referred to the police.

And I'd argue it's also not appropriate for a political party or it's supporters to be referring only those who tweeted/posted/advertised to the police. That's the inevitable conclusion one must draw from the fact that all the reported cases today involve people who professed support for National, is it not?

The other conclusion to draw, extending from the first one, is that said party/supporters are sore losers, and act like spoilt children when they don't get their way. Pathetic. Time for them to grow up I say.

Nice attempt to pin it on the opposition, but the people who referred the matter to the police are the Electoral Commission, who monitor things like social networks and media during the day of the election.

Key making public statements on the guilt or innocence of people is inappropriate, full stop. These are people who might actually have a trial, be convicted, and be fined up to $20,000.

Mind you, anyone who takes voting advice from rich men who get paid to be hit in the head for 80 minutes once a week needs their head examined.

You mean people that are richer than you?

I can think of an AllBlack Captain that is a Rhodes Scholar, a current that is a Lawyer, another with one degree and completing a second.... thats just off the top of my head

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

markl

348 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

#1168538 4-Nov-2014 14:46

ckc:

Nice attempt to pin it on the opposition, but the people who referred the matter to the police are the Electoral Commission, who monitor things like social networks and media during the day of the election.

Key making public statements on the guilt or innocence of people is inappropriate, full stop. These are people who might actually have a trial, be convicted, and be fined up to $20,000.

Mind you, anyone who takes voting advice from rich men who get paid to be hit in the head for 80 minutes once a week needs their head examined.

Yeah, well, its too coincidental if you ask me. I personally saw as many tweets "pushing" parties other than National as ones pushing the Nats, on election day. Sorry, but I just don't think it's completely above board. Agree with you about the brainlessness of people who are incapable of making their own minds up. Giving those people the ability to vote in the first place is surely the REAL crime here...!

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 100
Inactive user

#1168562 4-Nov-2014 15:21

KiwiNZ:
You mean people that are richer than you?

I can think of an AllBlack Captain that is a Rhodes Scholar, a current that is a Lawyer, another with one degree and completing a second.... thats just off the top of my head

None of the people currently being referred to police are Rhodes Scholars, lawyers or have degrees.

Also, the lawyer you speak of, Conrad Smith, is well accustomed to being concussed and playing on regardless. So despite being a lawyer, probably not that smart to put bravado before his brain. Although he's smart enough not to tweet political support on election day.

1 | 2 | 3