Ministers face growing backlash against draconian new web laws which could ‘censor free speech’ 

Ministers are facing a growing backlash against draconian new web laws which critics warn could lead to totalitarian-style 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.’

MPs have been led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said last night that the legislation should not ‘be at the expense of crippling a free Press and gagging healthy public expression’

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 so-called ‘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.’