Should politicians have the right to block citizens on Twitter?

Ottawa court case could see access to elected officials’ feed become a right, as social media tool has become an exclusive official stand-alone medium.

There is something undeniably satisfying about blocking a troublesome person on Twitter. One click, and the noise is over.

But that simple act, if carried out by a government official, could end up being unconstitutional in Canada if a newly launched court challenge is successful against Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

Three Ottawa residents formally launched a case against Watson this week, arguing that he is violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when he blocks users on Twitter.

This isn’t a frivolous case. The complainants are serious people: Dylan Penner works with the Council of Canadians, James Hutt is with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Emilie Taman is a lawyer, professor and former NDP candidate, as well as being the daughter of former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour.

Their lawyer is Paul Champ and I talked to him briefly this week after he filed the application. Yes, it’s true, Champ said — politicians don’t have any constitutional obligations to listen to citizens in Canada, with some notable, if limited exceptions seen in recent court cases about Indigenous rights.

Watson, in his defence, has said his Twitter account is personal and that he has the right to block people on social media in the same way that he has the right to walk away in public from those exercising their free speech too aggressively.

One of the unfortunate side effects of seeing citizens as consumers is this whole idea that customers are always right. That may be a good strategy for running a business, but it’s simply not true that in a democracy citizens are always correct. Some people trying to elbow their way into the public square are just plain wrong — climate-change deniers, white supremacists, or any of those folks who try to trade on the idea that saying a blatantly wrong fact publicly makes it true.

The citizens involved in the case against Watson don’t fall into this category; as mentioned, they are serious people. But if they are successful in making Twitter access a constitutional right, are we somehow cheapening the idea of what counts for public/political debate in 2018?

The Ottawa complainants make a good case in their application that Twitter has become a public-information channel and politicians have no more right to block citizens from that sphere than they do in other realms.

You don’t see mayors, except in rare circumstances, being allowed to stop people from walking into city hall or cutting them from municipal mailing lists.

I’m guessing, inexpertly, though, that the Ottawa case might be stronger if the complainants can argue that Watson is giving information exclusively through Twitter that he isn’t giving through other channels — that it is, as Trump has more or less rendered it, an official, standalone medium.

However, Twitter does give another option — “muting.” When you “mute” someone, you don’t see their Tweets, but they can still see what you are posting.

That sounds just about perfect for politics these days — the right to speak, but no obligation to listen. Very 2018. For what it’s worth, the Ottawa complainants say they’d be fine if Watson merely muted them on Twitter.

When I set out to write this column this week, I asked around about whether any of the political parties had policies for blocking on Twitter. The prime minister’s account, @JustinTrudeau, does not block any users, PMO spokesperson Cameron Ahmad told me. But some ministers may block “in the case of bots, abusive or threatening language.” The New Democrats, including leader Jagmeet Singh, have an informal policy of discouraging blocking, I was told. No one for the Conservatives got back to me by deadline. However, I have seen people complaining about various MPs in that caucus blocking critics on Twitter — Michelle Rempel is reportedly an enthusiastic blocker — so I assume no prohibition on blocking exists for the official Opposition.

That could all change if this interesting challenge with the Ottawa mayor goes ahead and suddenly Twitter access is deemed a Charter right. A court date has already been set for the end of January and many of us will be keenly watching.