I WONDER how many of the 350,000 people who signed the 'Ban Donald Trump from the UK' petition did it for a sort of impulsive laugh, and how many put any degree of rational thought into what they were signing?

The signatures were gathered in a single day, so I would guess that very few of them had a chance to come to a balanced and informed conclusion on the proposal.

I understand the argument: that Trump is a hate preacher on a par with Abu Hamza and his ilk, and should therefore be banned under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

This kind of legislation has always been troublesome, for a start. Hate speech is a subjective idea, and it is discomforting that we’ve given the power to present (and future) politicians to rule on what we can and can’t say. Who decides where the line is drawn? What if today’s legitimate protest is tomorrow’s hate speech? Baselines shift.

But anyway, the idea that Trump is on a par with those who incite desperate youngsters to strap dynamite to themselves is utterly ludicrous. He was expressing a political idea. An ugly, distasteful, repellent and unworkable political idea, sure, but in this country we do not simply ban people we disagree with. We let them speak, and they hang themselves with their own words.

Hysterical campaigns like ‘Ban Trump’ are the result of the outrage machine that is Twitter, which seems to make normally sensible people become completely impulsive. It doesn’t help that online disagreements routinely descend into binary arguments with no room for nuance. This, in turn, seems to make people intolerant of thoughts and ideas different to their own.

On Facebook yesterday I saw a little ‘infographic’ with an unflattering photo of Trump (is there any other kind?). Next to it there was a quote from a liberal UK politician that said: “This kind of intolerance is unacceptable.” They weren’t being ironic. Under the picture it read: “Share if you agree!”

That’s what counts for political discourse on social media. “Here is an opinion or a decontextualised fact. Share if you agree.”

Much of this story has reminded me of the ‘safe space’ and ‘trigger warning’ battles being fought on University campuses, both here and in America. The idea that we must be protected by authority figures from things we find disagreeable, as if offence can kill.

I wouldn’t mind that social media is often little more than a gust of ignorance that blows from one target to another at hyperfast speeds, as long as it doesn’t affect political discourse in the real world.

But now it has crossed over, and the result is that our Parliament has to waste precious time debating this ridiculous proposal, as if it was in some way workable, and not just the product of someone’s momentary outrage.

But, reason has lost, it will be debated.

Let’s see what the Twitter reaction is.