Tory MPs demand U-turn over online regulator ‘that will censor free speech’
MINISTERS are facing a growing backlash against draconian new web laws which critics warn could lead to totalitarianstyle censorship.
Under the plans published by Home Secretary Sajid Javid last week, an internet watchdog would have the power to block websites if the regulator decides to veto the content.
The aim of the Online Harms White Paper is to target offensive material such as terrorists’ beheading videos. But under the document’s provisions, the regulator would have complete discretion to decide what qualified as ‘harmful, hateful or bullying’ – potentially including coverage of contentious issues such as transgender rights.
After MPs lined up to demand a rethink, Downing Street has put pressure on Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright – who drafted the sections relating to the media – to narrow the definition of ‘harm’ in order to exclude typical editorial content.
MPs have been led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said last night that while it was obviously a ‘worthwhile aim’ to ‘rid the web of the evils of terrorist propaganda and child pornography’, it should not ‘be at the expense of crippling a free Press and gagging healthy public expression’.
He added that the regulator could be used as a tool of repression by a future Jeremy Corbyn-led government, saying: ‘Sadly, the Online Harms White Paper appears to give the Home Secretary of the day the power to decide the rules as to which content is considered palatable. Who is to say that less scrupulous governments in the future would not abuse this new power?
‘I fear this could have the unintended consequence of reputable newspaper websites being subjected to quasi-state control. British newspapers’ freedom to hold authority to account is an essential bulwark of our democracy.
‘We must not now allow what amounts to a Leveson-style state-controlled regulator for the Press by the back door.’
He was backed by Charles Walker, vice-chairman of the Tory Party’s powerful backbench 1922 Committee, who said: ‘We need to protect people from the well-documented evils of the internet – not in order to suppress views or opinions to which they might object.’
The 98-page document laid out plans for a new duty of care which would apply to any website that allows users to post content – regardless of whether it is a tech giant such as Google or Facebook, or smaller online news services.
Critics fear that the new rules would suppress legitimate news journalism because the tech giants would set their search algorithms to exclude news stories about controversial subjects.
Facebook is already planning to rate news sites based on the ‘trust’ they have in the content.
MPs fear that the prospective legislation has been so loosely worded that the ‘thought police’ would be able to shut down the discussion of such contentious issues, without clear lines on the distinction between free speech and hate speech.
Media companies would potentially be forced to hire an army of ‘fact-checkers’ to avoid being censured for socalled ‘disinformation’.
In last week’s Mail on Sunday, former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale warned that the legislation was more usually associated with autocratic regimes including those in China, Russia or North Korea.
The White Paper does not set out whether the regulator will be free-standing or included as part of media watchdog Ofcom’s existing responsibilities, what its rules will be, or even to whom it will report.
Tory MP Philip Davies joined the criticism last night, saying: ‘Of course people need to be protected from the worst excesses of what takes place online. But equally, free speech in a free country is very, very important too. It’s vital we strike the right balance. While I have every confidence that Sajid Javid as Home Secretary would strike that balance, can I have the same confidence that a future Marxist government would not abuse the proposed new powers?’
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable also raised concerns over the measures, saying any new regulation ‘must be carefully considered by Parliament – not decided by Ministers behind closed doors’.
He acknowledged the need for new laws, saying there was ‘far too much illegal activity on social media, from inciting violence to grooming children for abuse’. But Sir Vince warned: ‘We must not allow state censorship of the internet by the backdoor.’
And Tory MP Martin Vickers added: ‘While we must take action to curb the unregulated wild west of the internet, we must not introduce state control of the Press as a result.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘These measures are not about regulation of the Press – they are about tackling online harms and the damage they can do to people’s lives. We have no intention for journalistic or editorial content to be affected in any way by the regulatory framework.’
It could be used as a tool of repression
IF FREEDOM of speech dies in this country, it will almost certainly happen by accident. Well-intentioned governments and people are busily trying to cope with a multitude of new problems, most of them caused by the internet. And because they are in a hurry, and trying to please public opinion, they tend to reach for a bludgeon rather than a scalpel.
That is certainly the case with the Government’s alarming new White Paper on ‘Online Harms’. This has been produced jointly by Jeremy Wright, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid.
Everyone will applaud its aims, to deter the dissemination of revolting pornography, terrorist propaganda and similar menaces. Most will also agree that it is about time the internet Goliaths, over-mighty subjects who are a law unto themselves, were reined in.
The huge expansion of the web into every area of life has provided wonderful opportunities, but has also opened a portal through which all kinds of perils can enter our homes and lives. People are rightly wondering how this huge and important sector is so free of the regulation and protection which govern every other area of human activity.
But, as usual, we should be careful what we wish for. The law of unintended consequences is in operation again.
The White Paper is an airily worded document full of dangers to people and enterprises who are doing no more than allowing normal debate or free speech. Its proposed regulator will have huge powers to levy devastating fines on companies and named individuals. It will even be able to ‘disrupt’ or block service providers.
This is a favourite method of the Chinese police state, whose ‘Great Firewall’, manned by legions of vigilant censors, tries to keep unapproved ideas off the internet.
These rules and penalties, if implemented, will apply to almost anyone who allows free comment on a website. Their terms are terrifyingly vague – ‘offensive material’, ‘unacceptable’ material, or words which supposedly undermine our values. As these rules will almost certainly be enforced by unaccountable politically correct quangocrats (is there any other kind?), they offer a danger to free debate under any government.
The only commercially sensible thing to do, if this regime is introduced, will be to play very safe indeed, with a huge amount of self-censorship stifling online discussion.
Few will dare risk a breach, and where decisions must be taken quickly, they will be taken very nervously. But imagine how much worse matters would be under a Corbyn government with a hardliner such as Diane Abbott in the Home Office.
When the plans were first announced, many greeted them with complacency or even satisfaction. But as the real meaning of the White Paper has become clear, more and more voices are rightly urging caution and restraint.
There are signs that some Ministers have realised in time that the document is badly drafted and dangerously vague, and gives gigantic powers to bodies which will themselves need to be regulated.
Others rightly do not wish to place the means for censorship in the hands of a future Marxist government.
But talk is not enough. The plans should be carefully revised to ensure they do not do disastrous collateral damage to British liberty, and Ministers should commit themselves swiftly to the principle of freedom first.