Cooke wants Ofcom to censor at the speed of virality, even as the law says that’s not its job.
DIDI RANKOVIC
UK’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary Andy Cooke, and the Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), continue to focus on online speech (social media) in an attempt to explain last year’s Southport riots, and how similar scenarios should be prevented going forward.
And while critics continue to heap criticism on the Online Safety Act as going too far and effectively serving as a sweeping online censorship and age verification law – the problem Cooke sees is that neither the law nor its enforcer, the regulator Ofcom, are going far enough.
Cooke is not satisfied with how quickly what was deemed by the authorities as misinformation got removed from social networks last summer and believes that if Ofcom were to be given additional powers, that “problem” might be solved.
More: UK PM Keir Starmer Uses Riots To Call For Mass Surveillance and Social Media Censorship
His argument is that the Online Safety Act is limiting Ofcom’s “capacity and capability” to delete online content so quickly as to rule out the ability of this information “spreading virally.”
When trying to contain speech around events like the 2024 rioting and protests, as things stand now, the law has “little or no bearing” – according to Cooke.
However, judging by Ofcom’s reaction, he may not properly understand the regulator’s role in enforcing the Act. The speed of this kind of censorship is not the issue, since Ofcom is not supposed to do that in the first place.
The regulator told the BBC that it “cannot assess individual pieces of content or take down specific posts” but is supposed to force platforms to implement systems and processes that will “protect people from illegal material, and ensure children do not encounter other harmful content.”
This can be interpreted as meaning that the law, and Ofcom, serve the purpose of “systemic” rather than “per-post” censorship.
Meanwhile, a recent HMICFRS report found that causes of the Southport riots were “complex” – and were not premeditated, or coordinated.
More: Keir Starmer’s Censorship Playbook
Criminal factions and extremists were not involved, either. And so, “inspectors said that it was mostly disaffected individuals, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently and take part in disorder.”
The report decided to put the hard but essential issue of the complexity of the causes aside – and emphasize “the overwhelming speed and volume of online content” that “further fueled (disorder’s) spread.”
Reacting to all this, the Big Brother Watch civil rights campaigner recalled its investigations into previous instances of the authorities policing speech during crises, such as during Covid.
“The Government or media regulators should not be given a blank check to decide what we can read, see, or hear,” the group said in a post on X. “At times of unrest, we need to protect our democratic rights with more vigor, not less.”
This article (UK Inspector Andy Cooke Pushes for Stronger Powers to Curb Viral “Misinformation” After Southport Riots) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Didi Rankovic
••••
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