[ad_1]
Reading the headlines about the Online Safety Bill might give you the impression that it has been dramatically weakened.
Five years after it was first proposed, Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan has produced a new version of the bill – the third, by my count – and removed a key element, the provisions against so-called “legal but harmful” content.
Campaigners and charities have accused Ms Donelan of watering down the bill, and on the face of it, the criticism seems fair.
Without rules against “legal but harmful” content, someone who is being abused online in the most shocking circumstances – after they have been the victim of a terror attack for instance – will find no protection.
The bill is, undeniably, weaker than before.
Yet, as Ms Donelan tried to explain, the weakness has to be compared to the strength of the original product. Yes, the bill has been diluted, but from a point of eye-watering potency. That doesn’t mean it is now worthless and watery.
To understand just what powerful stuff the Online Safety Bill was, consider the practicalities of going after “legal but harmful” content.
This was a new category created especially for the bill, which meant that things that it would be legal to say to someone’s face would no longer be permissible online, as long as they caused someone harm.
That sounded like a good idea, until civil servants tried to define the exact meaning of harm. Did it mean hurt feelings? Physical ill-effects? On one person or lots of people? What about jokes? Or journalism?
Even after years of work, no-one was precisely sure. The attempts to avoid unintended consequences reassured very few people.
‘A recipe for trouble’
If that sounds like a recipe for trouble, wait until you hear how “legal but harmful” was going to be enforced on the ground.
Not by the police, nor by civil servants. Lacking the technology and…
[ad_2]
