I’ve written an article about the Online Safety Bill for ConservativeHome in reply to a piece last week by Chris Philp, a minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which argued that the Bill would enhance free speech online rather than undermine it. The focus of my piece is the concept of ‘legal but harmful’, which I argue is a sinister departure from one of the fundamental principles of English Common Law.
Not only is the concept of ‘legal but harmful’ content a weaselly way of trying to restrict free speech – of trying to square a circle that cannot be squared – but it is a breach of the fundamental principle of English Common Law that unless something is explicitly prohibited it is permitted.
It introduces a new grey area in which certain speech is deemed by the Government to be harmful and social media companies are encouraged to remove it, but it is not explicitly forbidden.
This sets a dangerous precedent – will the concept of ‘legal but harmful’ be extended to what we’re allowed to say in print? – and is bound to have a chilling effect on free speech.
To make matters worse, there is no concrete, non-circular definition of content that is ‘legal but harmful’ to adults in the Bill. Rather, this will be included in supplementary legislation – a statutory instrument to be brought forward by the Culture Secretary.
We do not yet know what content will be included in this Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which makes informed discussion of the Bill difficult, but in the DCMS press release about the latest version of the Bill (which uses the phrase ‘legal but harmful’ eight times) ‘harassment’ is given as an example.
That set alarm bells ringing. The Free Speech Union has just successfully concluded a protracted dispute with Essex University over its anti-discrimination and harassment policies which were invoked to no-platform two feminist law professors three years ago.
After we threatened Essex with a law suit, it reluctantly agreed to amend its polices so they cannot be used in the same way again. But the practice of shutting down opposition to trans rights dogma on the grounds that challenging it constitutes ‘harassment’ of trans people is widespread across the higher education sector.
I am concerned that if ‘harassment’ is designated as ‘legal but harmful’ in the secondary legislation, that will be exploited by trans rights activists to get social media platforms to censor people defending women’s rights.
Even if the statutory instrument brought forward by Nadine Dorries is not overly censorious, what guarantee do we have her successors will be equally restrained?
The power the Bill confers on the Secretary of State at DCMS to draw up a list of ‘legal but harmful’ material he or she would like social media platforms to restrict is likely to be taken advantage of by a future Labour government to stifle criticism of its agenda. In that respect, this Bill is a hostage to fortune.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
‘Harms’ can take years to manifest themselves. Current understanding is that thousands of our children have suffered psychological harms as a result of destructive and useless lockdowns but for some the effects may not appear for decades.
What then? The perpetrators are known now but they are not being held accountable and nor are they ever likely to be.
How do we determine accurately the origins of psychological harms yet to appear?
We are on dangerous territory and in a place I never expected to see in Britain in my lifetime.
Speech is not harmful.
Sticks and stones may break my bones – but names? They’ll never hurt me.
No-one should have the right to not be offended – offence is taken, not given.
This is definitely “worth reading in full.” I guess you better write and publish such arguments while you still can!
What blew me away was your first sentence when you mention, “Chris Philp, a minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.”
Why in the hell does the great nation of England even need a “Department for Culture, Media and Sport?”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the UK could/would still have “culture, media and sport” without such an agency or a “minister” to preside over this agency.
We need a “Department of Abolishing Stupid Departments.”
Our “culture, media and sport” are being slowly demolished.
Culture – purposefully to enable one world government.
Media – to assist with the above.
Sport – because it exists to provide the circuses for the plebs and if it wasn’t destroyed it might assist in promoting British culture, patriotism and our nation.
Nailed it. Well done.
Thank you.
I’ve daydreamed about running for president of the United States and what some of my campaign planks would be.
I’m one of those small-government conservatives, certainly too close to libertarian to even get elected dog catcher in my City Council district. Still, I would show my small-government bona fides by mentioning all the things I would do to save tax-payers’ money.
For example, however many times past presidents used Air Force One, I would cut that figure by at least 75 percent. So when there was some tornado in Missouri, I wouldn’t tell the pilot to fire up my jet so I could go to the town and offer moral support. My thought would be the good people in this town and state could deal with the issues themselves and my security detail would just get in the way … and cost a lot of money.
I’d also do away with the White House sign language interpreters and Spanish translators (but I’d wish them well getting work with all the mayors, bureaucrats and governors that use their services to make their pronouncements seem more important).
I’ve thought about maybe cutting the White House paid staff by about 75 percent as well. However, I wouldn’t want to eliminate all of my aides. Because I want to keep a good platoon of interns and gung-ho true-believers who could help me figure out all the departments, agencies and regulations we need to eliminate.
I’d need sharp thinkers, writers and researchers to counter all the false narratives the mainstream press was harping on – and we’d put these arguments on our website and this research would give me excellent talking points for my daily press conferences.
And I would hold daily press conferences as the only real tool I have to change the way people think is to use my “bully pulpit” to take advantage of the ubiquitous press coverage the press gives a president’s words.
These would be “Must-See” Press Conferences as I would try to use the Socratic Method to harpoon all the false premises flowing out of my questions. If CBS and CNN quit covering my press conferences (because I was scoring too many points in them), I’d replace their correspondents with some better journalists working at obscure news organizations that have effectively been censored. This would create new readers or audiences for these sites.
Besides this, I”d shoot hoops on the goal that Obama installed, swim in the White House pool, bowl at the White House bowling alley (if it still exists) and basically let the country run itself.
“First do no harm” would be my motto as president. I would specialize in vetoing almost all bills, unless some bill abolished some ridiculous agency of government.
Finally, I would be pro free speech. One of my first acts as president would be to invite Elon Musk to the White House for lunch and club sandwiches to thank him for freeing up Twitter.
This all sounds marvellous Bill !
I’m also a string believer in “Small” Government
I think the problem we have now is that without many of the “Bullshit” jobs that have been created we’d potentially have man people out of work.
Although if Buckminster Fuller were to be believed they’d all find employment doing things they actually loved and wanted to do. But that can only work in a non-interfering free-market capitalist society of course.
I would be interested in learning how many Americans with full-time jobs work in tax-payer funded jobs.
This would be federal government employees, state employees, local government employees (county and city), all public school employees and all public-funded college employees. You could add the military, National Guard and Reserves and all the “contractors” who work for the military or other federal agencies.
You could really throw in the “private sector” jobs that depend on government contracts for their revenues. This would be most of the military-industrial complex jobs and many jobs in the “medical” and Pharma cartel (as the government pays for these medicines and services for most of health-care customers).
I don’t know how many “full-time” workers there are in America (population 335 million). Maybe 180 million? Tally up all of the above jobs and I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 percent of these jobs (36 million?) are funded directly or indirectly through some level of government.
Now add up all the current and future pensions for these millions of people …
Somehow I don’t think Thomas Jefferson and George Washington foresaw such a world when they helped create this country.
Squaring a circle which cannot be squared is a tautology. No circle can be squared.
In a 50-page report, Francis Hoar considers current protections for freedom of expression under English law and proposes certain reforms. Former Supreme Court judge and historian Lord Sumption wrote the foreword to the report.
Francis discusses protections offered by:
He highlights threats to freedom of speech online and makes proposals for reform including:
You can see it and download it here: In Protection of Freedom of Speech, a legal analysis by Francis Hoar. (englishtuc.org)
Well worth reading in full and very much in tune with what TY writes. Hoar was a staunch opponent of covid nonsense and took part in some legal cases against it.
I honestly don’t know why anybody engages with this as if it were being pursued in good faith. As if there were a genuine interest in avoiding harms to supposedly vulnerable people. Yeah, right, like the establishment really cares that some people get their feelings hurt. Please.
It’s a barefaced power grab by the established political parties and the state bureaucracy who increasingly see themselves as being on the same side and in opposition to what they like to label as “populism”.
Basically, it’s the establishment protecting itself against the growing tide of people who realise that the establishment works for giant corporations and the billionaires that own them and not for ordinary people.
And the establishment is engaged in this perpetual, absurd exercise of keeping the system rigged while pretending to be doing this for the good of ordinary people, which nobody buys anymore. The game is up and all they have left is to shut people up about it. They use whatever excuse they can find to have the mechanism to shut people up.
The online harms bill isn’t at risk of being used to shut down political and anti-establishment dissent. That’s exactly what it’s for.
Yeah, let’s pretend it’s all about the deep concern that our elected officials have for the feelings of the trans population, the profound shame they feel for the behaviour of our ancestors 200 years ago, the terrible concern they have for the rampant racism in our country. Yep, let’s pretend that’s what it’s all about.
The only harms they’re really interested in avoiding is harm to their status, to their power and to their profits from a rigged system.
The bill should be called the Preserve the Rigged System Bill.
“I honestly don’t know why anybody engages with this as if it were being pursued in good faith.”
I doubt anyone below the line believes it is in good faith. The framers of the US constitution knew all about tyranny and built in checks and balances between the branches, and then added some more checks, starting with the First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
An attempt by @UKLabour & @theSNP politicians to worsen dreadful Online Safety Bill
https://twitter.com/Togetherdec/status/1537351287238426624
Science advances by Open Debate
& today’s “misinfo” is received wisdom tomorrow
Masks were “misinfo” – ’til they decided not
“Lab leak” was conspiracy – ’til it wasn’t
Stand for freedom & make friends with our Yellow Boards By The Road
Friday 17th June 3.30pm to 4.30pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A330 Cock Lane &
B3022 Bracknell Lane Warfield,
Bracknell RG42 6JE
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Henley
Mills Meadows (bandstand) RG9 1DS
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f446.svgplease sharehttps://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f446.svg
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The attempt to silence “legal but harmful” speech (including on social media) is censorship. It is no different from the Catholic Church attempting to silence Protestant dissent in the Middle Ages; Islamists attempting to silence dissent now and various post WW2 Eastern European Communist regimes attempting to silence dissent.
None of them succeeded. All it did was drive the debate underground – until it became too widespread to contain.
At least Glenn Greenwald – who couldn’t get a job in the mainstream press anymore –
understands the significance of the Julian Assange persecution. Excerpts from his recent Substack piece:
“Whatever else one might think of Assange, there is simply no question that he is one of the most consequential, pioneering, and accomplished journalists of his time. One could easily make the case that he occupies the top spot by himself. And that, of course, is precisely why he is in prison: because, just like free speech, “free press” guarantees in the U.S. and UK exist only on a piece of parchment and in theory.
“… Much of the American corporate media class has ignored Assange’s persecution or even cheered it precisely because he shames them, serving as a vivid mirror to show them what real journalism is and how they are completely bereft of it.
“… Free speech and press freedoms do not exist in reality in the U.S. or the UK …The Julian Assange persecution is a great personal tragedy, a political travesty and a grave danger to basic civic freedoms. But it is also a bright and enduring monument to the fraud and deceit that lies at the heart of these two governments’ depictions of who and what they are.”
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-uks-decision-to-extradite-assange