Proposed internet regulations would censor the speech of millions, experts warn

Regulations proposed by the UK government to limit the spread of ‘harmful’ content could lead to the lawful speech of millions being censored, civil rights groups warn.

The chiefs of five prominent organisations have spoken out about their issues with the Online Harms White Paper, issued on Monday, in an open letter to the Guardian.

Experts say that the report, which proposes taking sites offline to UK citizens if they fall foul of new regulators, would be ‘disastrous if it proceeds in its current form.’

The white paper also suggests levying massive fines on companies like Facebook and Google and their employees if they fail to meet up to regulatory requirements.

It’s part of an effort to crack down on the spread of child abuse images, terrorism, revenge pornography and hate crime online.

But they have sparked fears that they could backfire and turn Britain into the first Western nation to adopt the kind of censorship usually associated with totalitarian regimes.

Regulations proposed by the UK government to limit the spread of ‘harmful’ content could lead to the lawful speech of millions being censored, civil rights groups warn. Under new rules, any website which allows users to post content will have a legal ‘duty of care’ to all users

Signatories of the letter include Antonia Byatt, director of the English PEN, the worldwide writers’ association; Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch; Thomas Hughes, executive director of free speech group Article 19; Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group and Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship.

In it, they said: ‘The lawful speech of millions of people would be monitored, regulated and censored.

‘The result is an approach that would make China’s state censors proud. It would be very likely to face legal challenge.

‘It would give the UK the widest and most prolific internet censorship in an apparently functional democracy.’

Campaigner Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, told MailOnline on Monday: ‘We are talking about the potential for the most draconian crackdown in the Western democratic world’

WHAT DOES THE OPEN LETTER TO THE GUARDIAN SAY ABOUT THE ONLINE HARMS WHITE PAPER?

In an open letter to the Guardian, chiefs of five civil rights groups have warned about their issues with the Online Harms White Paper.

In it, they said: ‘We agree with your characterisation of the Online Harms White Paper as a flawed attempt to deal with serious problems.

‘However, we would draw your attention to several fundamental problems with the proposal which could be disastrous if it proceeds in its current form.

‘Firstly, the white paper proposes to regulate literally the entire internet, and censor anything non-compliant.

‘This extends to blogs, file services, hosting platforms, cloud computing; nothing is out of scope.

‘Secondly, there are a number of undefined “harms” with no sense of scope or evidence thresholds to establish a need for action.

‘The lawful speech of millions of people would be monitored, regulated and censored.

‘The result is an approach that would make China’s state censors proud. It would be very likely to face legal challenge.

‘It would give the UK the widest and most prolific internet censorship in an apparently functional democracy. A fundamental rethink is needed.’

Signed by:

Antonia Byatt Director, English PEN
Silkie Carlo Big Brother Watch
Thomas Hughes Executive director, Article 19
Jim Killock Executive director, Open Rights Group
Joy Hyvarinen Head of advocacy, Index on Censorship

Speaking to MailOnline on Monday, Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group and one of the signatories of the letter, said: ‘We are talking about the potential for the most draconian crackdown in the Western democratic world.

‘We’re talking about banning content that the government won’t make illegal – it won’t legislate to ban it, but it wants companies to do so.

‘They’re saying “we don’t like Facebook so we’re going to give Facebook more power to regulate our content more”, it’s a terrible irony.’

The UK’s Culture Secretary has said that the proposed laws will not limit press freedom, however.

In a letter to the Society of Editors on Wednesday, April 10, Jeremy Wright vowed that ‘journalistic or editorial content would not be affected’ by the proposals.

And he reassured free speech advocates by saying there would be safeguards to protect the role of the press.

Jeremy Wright vowed that ‘journalistic or editorial content would not be affected’ by the proposals. He sought to reassure news chiefs that the Government would preserve press freedoms

The Government is facing accusations that its Online Harms White Paper paves the way for totalitarian-style censorship.

The 98-page document laid out plans for an internet watchdog that would have the power to block websites from Britain if they did not adhere to its rules.

The regulator could also remove non-compliant websites from search results and app stores, and stop users from accessing them via links on social media.

Former culture secretary John Whittingdale drew parallels with China, Russia and North Korea.

Matthew Lesh of the Adam Smith Institute, a free market think-tank, branded the white paper a ‘historic attack on freedom of speech’.

Mr Lesh said: ‘Even if they exempt newspaper content from the scheme, there is still a serious danger that it could lead to certain news content being removed or hidden on search engines and social media sites.

‘It will also serve to limit journalistic access to information by requiring social media companies to remove content. At the very least, the Government should make a distinction between news sources and user-generated content.

‘This entire white paper is a serious threat to a free, liberal society. The Government should go back to the drawing board.’

WHAT DOES THE ONLINE HARMS WHITE PAPER SAY?

The UK plans to hold executives personally liable for posts on social media that are harmful or illegal, revealed in a government white paper on April 8, 2019.

The paper’s proposals include:

Personal fines for individual senior managers at firms which seriously break the rules;

Web firms needing to provide annual reports setting out the amount of harmful content on their platforms;

Civil fines of up to £20million, or 4 per cent of annual turnover, for firms which break the rules;

In the worst circumstances, the regulator could have offending websites blocked by internet service providers, so they cannot be accessed in the UK.

The regulator will also have powers to tackle disinformation – so-called ‘fake news’ – although the White Paper concedes this has no clear legal definition.

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk