The Online Safety Act is a censor’s charter
ANDREW DOYLE
The baton has passed. On Friday, the previous Conservative government’s Online Safety Bill, newly refined by Labour, came into full force. This collaboration between Left and Right is all the evidence we need that one of the core aspects of woke ideology has prevailed. Specifically, the unevidenced belief that words cause real-world harm and therefore censorship is essential for the sake of social cohesion.
This has been a long time coming. Opposition from MPs has been lacklustre; most of our political class simply does not understand why the principle of free speech should take priority in a civilised society. This was evident from Keir Starmer’s comments this week during his joint interview with Donald Trump at the Trump-Turnberry golf course in Scotland. With nuclear-strength audacity, Starmer claimed that he was “not censoring anyone”. Rather, his Government was simply putting measures in place “to protect children, in particular from sites like suicide sites”.
It all sounds noble enough, until one realises that the impact of the Online Safety Act will not simply stop at child protection. Social media platforms are now liable for “false communications” that may cause “non-trivial psychological harm”, a crime that can result in a jail term of up to 51 weeks. Here is the specific section of the Act:
A person commits an offence if –
(a) the person sends a message,
(b) the message conveys information that the person knows to be false,
(c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, and
(d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.
As with all ‘hate speech’ legislation, one suspects that the ambiguity is the point. If the standard is psychological harm, then almost anyone who speaks in public is vulnerable. I certainly receive abuse regularly that would qualify, but I would much sooner block these angry trolls than see them arrested. Moreover, we have already seen the claim of psychological harm weaponised against perfectly legitimate and sensible points of view. In other words, this nebulous legislation is wide open to exploitation by activists looking to silence their critics.
This act will limit the parameters of discussion because no social media platform is going to risk falling foul of the legislation. The fines for non-compliance can be up to £18 million, or 10% of global turnover (whichever is higher). Overzealous censorship is inevitable. Where content is controversial, it will be far easier for social media companies to err on the side of deletion rather than risk such stringent financial penalties.
The UK is now essentially in ‘pre-bunking’ mode, the term used by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to describe her intention to roll out censorship online. At last year’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit, she argued that when it comes to misinformation, “prevention is preferable to cure”. She continued: “Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus. Instead of treating an infection, once it has taken hold, that is debunking. It is much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated. Pre-bunking is the same approach.”
This is sinister stuff. It also makes me wonder why those calling for censorship are invariably too timid to utter the word? Why must they insist that they support free speech and resort to these endless euphemisms? I would have far more respect for a technocrat who came out and said it: “I do not trust the masses to speak freely, and that is why they must be censored.” It would be terrifying, but at least the honesty would be refreshing.
And so now in the UK, social media users are experiencing a curated version of the internet. Many examples have already been posted online. A thread on X by Benjamin Jones of the Free Speech Union includes a number of screenshots of posts that have been quietly ‘disappeared’. For instance, a post about the grooming gangs scandal by Conservative MP Katie Lam has been replaced with a message explaining that the content has been restricted:
This post calling for single-sex spaces has been censored:
.
Footage of arrests in Leeds suggestive of two-tier policing have been blocked:
.
And even Jones’s thread itself has been hidden due to the Online Safety Act:
All of which makes it clear that the scope of censorship under the new act will far exceed the remit of protecting children from inappropriate material. Few will have failed to notice that censored posts seem to be those that the government might be glad to see suppressed.
Whether this is coincidence or not, the vagueness of the legislation will make it far easier for the government to crack down on its detractors. Worse still, it will establish a precedent whose end point will be impossible to predict. Those who are happy to cheer on online censorship now may not be so buoyant once they realise that these restrictions could also apply to them.
A combination of complacency and ignorance has led our political class to all but abandon the principles of free speech upon which our democracy was founded. While the list of citizens arrested or jailed for wrongspeak continues to grow, our Government has now exacerbated the problem by insisting that social media platforms censor on its behalf.
This will not end well. Don’t believe me? Read a few history books.
This article (The Online Safety Act is a censor’s charter) was created and published by Andrew Doyle and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
Political Censors Have Cynically Hijacked Vital Child Protections
TOBY YOUNG
The rise of populism has made the impulse to censor irresistible to its opponents, according to Andrew Orlowski in the Telegraph. Here’s how his latest piece begins:
Britons woke up last week to discover that their firehose of digital smut had been strangled, albeit temporarily for consenting adults. Undeniably, the introduction of age verification regulations does mark a huge change in our relationship with the internet, hitherto a pornographic free-for-all.
It may feel like a shock to find a third party inserting itself between you and a website, apparently demanding to know who you are, but it shouldn’t be a surprise: it’s eight years since the UK Government published its online harms green paper under Theresa May, and The Telegraph launched its Duty of Care campaign the following year.
After much wrangling, the result was the 2023 Online Safety Act. In March, the first part of went into effect, placing new obligations on platforms to remove content that is legal, but harmful to children: suicide advice, eating disorders or dangerous stunt challenges.
The second phase went into force last week, requiring age checks for pornography sites.
“Companies have effectively been treating all users as if they’re adults, leaving children potentially exposed to porn and other types of harmful content,” wrote Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, in January.
The UK is not an outlier in its desire to keep children safe, either. Texas and three other US states require age verification for adult material, and so will Australia.
But critics of the law have warned of consequences for free expression from the start, and over-zealous interpretations quickly became apparent.
X, previously Twitter, has already put material behind the age gate, with Benjamin Jones, director of case management at the Free Speech Union – of which I am a member – identifying a number of posts which were worryingly censored for unverified users.
Some supported calls for single-sex spaces for women. One by Wuhan lab researcher Billy Bostickson (a pseudonym) fell foul too; it was part of a thread on the use of bamboo RNA in vaccines.
Several posts in a thread discussing Richard the Lionheart were gated, which merely contained a reference to the crusades.
Most troublingly, a post linking to a live stream of police arrests at a demonstration at a migrant hotel in Leeds was also taken down. All these bans appear to have been the work of an over-zealous algorithm.
Some saw this coming. Baroness Claire Fox has written of her dismay at realising how outnumbered speech advocates were when she was in a room as the only free speech advocate, alongside dozens of groups all requesting some clause or addition.
“Only two of us [peers] consistently opposed the bill – myself and Lord Daniel Moylan. I was shocked that so many from the free speech camp of peers were silent,” Fox tells me.
“It became a Christmas tree bill with lots of other things put in it,” said Kemi Badenoch as she campaigned for the Conservative leadership last year. She also predicted “it will go after people who aren’t doing anything wrong”.
That hasn’t quite happened yet, but long overdue moves to enforce accountability on giant, transnational platforms, and better protect children unfortunately coincided with a renewed desire to control political speech.
The good state must take an active role in removing inflammatory speech, the United Nations declared in its 2021 paper Our Common Agenda. It re-emphasised the point last year.
William Perrin, one of the architects of Ofcom’s approach to regulating online platforms, who was not involved in drafting the legislation, recently posted a paper for the think tank Demos called Epistemic Security 2029: Protecting the UK’s information supply chains and strengthening discourse for the next political era. It explicitly calls for the policing of social media platforms.
One gets the sense that as long as populists are rising, the impulse to censor will be irresistible to their political opponents. By controlling our discourse, they can control democracy.
“We have an establishment that is innately hostile to Free Speech,” Jones of the Free Speech Union tells me.
Worth reading in full.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply