The Online Safety Bill wont survive the Tory contest – The Spectator

At yesterday's Spectator hustings for the final three Tory leadership candidates, each one of them ended up committing to overhauling the controversial Online Safety Bill. The Spectator and many Conservative MPs have expressed serious concerns about the impact of this legislation, drawn up with the best of intentions, on free speech.

Each acknowledged that there was a real problem with the current drafting, which creates a new definition of legal but harmful. Kemi Badenoch, who was knocked out yesterday, had described this as cracking down on free speech to prevent hurt feelings, which is something none of them fully accepted. But they all saw that legal but harmful as it currently stands is a bit of a one mans meat is another mans poison situation.

Its worth noting that both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak said their approach to the legislation was based on their own experiences as parents and their fears about their daughters accessing damaging things online. It is why Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and her opposite number Lucy Powell are both confident about defending the Bill: they know that parents are desperate for something to be done about the Wild West of the online world for children.

The problem is that when politicians create Something Must Be Done bills, they often end up with legislation that creates a lot of new problems that werent properly addressed because everyone was so focused on the principle, not the detail.

You can read below what each candidate said in full on this matter, or watch it here.

Rishi Sunak:

'I come at this first as a parent. I have two young girls who are at the age where they're starting to go online more. And I've got to tell you, I'm quite worried about all of that. And I sit down with my wife and we talk about it. I'm concerned about what they could end up looking at. And I think the exposure to explicit, sometimes horrific material at such a young age is wrong. And we've got to find a way to protect children against that in the same way as we do in the offline world, so to speak. So that's my first start. So I think we do need to have something that does that. But with the bill, I think the challenge we've got, and that's why I'm glad the government's paused the bill so we can refine our approach here, that the challenge is whether it strays into the territory of suppressing free speech. And the bit in particular that has caused some concern and questions is around this area where the government is saying, look, here's some content that's legal but harmful, and it's that that's this kind of area, which I think people rightly have said, well, what exactly does that mean? And that's the bit that I would want as prime minister to go and look at to make sure that we get that right.'

IH: So you're pledging to potentially scrap the legal but harmful section.

RS: 'Again, I know you're trying to push me into the direction of getting a firm pledge. What I'm saying is I do think we need to have a way to protect children against harm, as I said and I say that first and foremost as a parent. But I do want to make sure that we are also protecting free speech and the legal but harmful bit is the one that I would want to spend some time as prime minister going over and making sure that we're getting that bit exactly right. And I can't tell you what the right answer at the end of that process will be. But I think it's fair that people have raised some concerns about that and its impact on free speech. And I think it's right that those concerns are properly addressed.'

Penny Mordaunt:

'I do support the Bill. I would want to make progress on it, but I do understand the concerns that there are around how you define particular things in law and the chilling effect that it might have on freedom of speech. I think our government's got a good track record on freedom of speech. I think that there's always more we can do, but we have taken a real stand in a real grip on some of the issues affecting particularly on campuses and and elsewhere. I'm confident that we will be able to put a bill through that provides those reassurances. But clearly there are some pretty horrible things that need to be gripped, and that's what the Bill does.'

IH: So the issue of concern for The Spectator is that it would outlaw free speech by creating a new category of legal but harmful. What does legal but harmful mean to you?

'So it is difficult to define. This is the weak point because it is difficult to define these things in law because what you know, what might offend one person might be perfectly all right for another. And I think unless you can really define that in law, there's a problem. But we do have existing laws where people are causing real material harm to people, when people are stalked, for example, that I think we could draw on. But I do recognise the need that any law we're putting through has to have clarity. And if we can't provide that clarity, it's not going to work. So I'm prepared to look at those issues.'

IH: Someone being followed and monitored online is very different to somebody being distressed, as the bill itself puts it in one of its clauses by something that somebody else is saying online. I mean, we all have our different trigger points, so how would you protect that? That's one of the issues that one of your rivals, Kemi Badenoch, has referred to the hurt feelings clause, I think she's put it.

'Yes. But I don't think this is about hurt feelings. I think this is about elements of stalking or causing really severe distress to people. But again, this bill is very targeted at other issues. I think we also need to look at the business model of some of the platforms that we're talking about, platforms that one suspects don't have real people on them, and how some of those accounts and bots are being weaponised to to cause distress or spread misinformation. But I, I think the bottom line is, unless you can define this categorically in law, it's not going to be a good law and therefore best not make it.'

Liz Truss:

'I'm a believer in freedom of speech. I also believe that we need to protect particularly the under 18s from harm. And what I want to make sure with the Bill, and I know it's now going to the House of Lords, is that it strikes the balance correctly between those two things.'

IH: Do you think it does at the moment?

'Well, I need to look into more detail about exactly how it is implemented and have discussions with my colleagues. But the principles I believe in are the protection of free speech, but also making sure that we're not exposing under 18s to harm online. And, you know, I've got two teenage daughters. I am very, very concerned about the effect particularly social media has on teenage girls or mental health. So I will want to look at that and make sure that that is in the right place, as well as protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I'm a great believer that those are core freedoms that a healthy society depends on.'

IH: There's a big difference, though, isn't there, between social media outlets that promote eating disorders, that display sexually explicit content and so on? And one of the things that The Spectator is particularly worried about in the Bill, which is this new category of legal but harmful, which we think is going to basically outlaw legal free speech. Do you know what legal but harmful means?

'There's more nuance in the Bill than that. But I'd be very keen to talk to The Spectator and others to make sure the Bill delivers what we want it to deliver. And this is a complicated area. I speak to colleagues around the world who are looking at how to legislate for online spaces, you know the fundamental principle is the rules should be the same online as they are in real life. I think that's a fundamental principle and that's what I will make sure I apply.'

IH: You don't agree with the hurt feelings characterisation that some of your fellow candidates have used to describe this Bill?

'Well, as I've said, I'll need to look at exactly, you know, these issues are necessarily complex and nuanced. And I think there is a place for further amendments to this legislation to make sure we're delivering it and also make sure that everybody is aware of the intention of the Bill as well, which is also important. So I'm committed to doing that, but I think I've set out very clearly the principles I believe in.'

Visit link:
The Online Safety Bill wont survive the Tory contest - The Spectator