When the task is to hate.

You will recall how Barack Obama our first 'social media President' won the election. Making You the public aware of his political stance and his more personal identity. Part of the campaign was given voice and visualised moments through various social technology platforms. A first for politics. Certainly effective. And likely to be repeated.

Obama and his campaigners sort to cultivate a presence that could be seen and heard, and amass support. In the same manner Nick Griffin leader - I use such teminology in 'name' only, rather than to indicate a leading or inspirational figure-head (yes I'm Left) - as a less advanced political type is pitching for the same opportunity to voice his views on BBC's Question Time tonight.

I am not against Griffin's participation on Question Time. I am more concerned by his parties presence on SNSs like Facebook. But does this make me a hypocrite? I'm saying: Yes, to Question Time. No, to SNS Time?

Let me explain, here lies the distinction. It is likely, but by no means absolute, that those under the voting age will choose not to participate in the viewing of Griffin's (dross) dialogue. More likely in bed, on the wii, on Facebook, MSN etc. ... SNSs like Facebook, however, offer a different political ploy/ground. Children (above the age of 12years) are allowed and openly encouraged to have a presence on such sites. The same children who do not have the right to vote or to voice political opinion.

Surely, then following this line of argument then all politicians and political associations should be banned from Facebook?... And here lies the sticking point. SNSs are public venues; for friends, increasingly for Push PR, marketing and advertising and now for politicians. And you're not considered 'political enough' or 'down with' your supporters if you do not have a Twitter feed. Thus, there is one formulation that does equate. BNP stands for intolerance and discrimination against others. So yes they have a right to an equal voice in a political setting. But not in public spaces when they deny the same rights to others.

In short, it is perfectly useless to discriminate in the same manner as Griffin and his 'mates'. But I would add straight away that anyone/party that denies an equal footing to others should not be allowed to push their politics and presence in an open and public way on SNSs.

On Facebook, In 2007, a quick search for 'BNP' returned with 98 groups. Today, there are over 500. The second largest group being supportive of the BNP holds a disturbing accumulation of site users. Although the Group Admin's claim that 'This is the discussion group for those who can think for themselves'. Change 'think' to 'hate' and you have an idea of the general tone of postings and hoody-pictured members.

SNSs are public. And are also public with users who are underage in terms of political voting rights. There is no need for the BNP to hold such a public face. If they want to 'campaign' in such a manner there are 'secret groups' that they can set up.

The real irony is that the BNP, like many of us, enjoy the freedom that such social platforms provide. The very freedom that they seek to take away from others. So let them have a soapbox, but only across forums specifically set up for politcal discussion that can equalise the relationship between prejudice and fruitful debate.

Not full of hate, Obama remains my public 'Friend' on Facebook.