Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Index on Censorship has been tracking the Online Safety Bill and the precursor debate on ‘online harms’ for many years. It seems that finally, under the premiership of Liz Truss, there may be the prospect of sensible and workable regulation on how content is moderated online. It has been encouraging to hear the Prime Minister confirming at PMQs on 7 September 2022 that the Bill will be amended to better balance the trade offs on safety online and individual freedoms.
So how does the government move forward with one of its signature pieces of legislation in this Parliament?
Firstly, the Bill has benefitted from high level scrutiny in Parliament and in particular by the DCMS, Joint Select Committee and Lords’ Communications and Digital Committees. These bodies have carefully heard evidence from the tech industry, civil society, victims of abuse, academics, legal experts and others and produced detailed analyses that were ignored by the previous Secretary of State for DCMS, the fourth to be charged with the task of regulating online harms. It is time to listen to the detailed scrutiny that Parliament has undertaken.
Secondly, it is vitally important that the government legislates in a way that observes the principle of legality, namely that people, business and courts can apply the rules that Parliament sets with certainty. The common law has a long tradition of presuming the legislative intent of Parliament as contributing to existing bodies of law, including fundamental constitutional principles and rights . So far however, the Online Safety Bill has sought to invert the historic right of free speech online so that perceptions of subjective harm trump objective legality. Our legal analysis indicates that if the Bill is not amended with practicability in mind, free speech would be threatened by over removal of content and tech companies would likely leave the UK – diminishing our thriving digital economy/society. Efficacy and workability should be at the heart of this new legislation, not vague commitments to cure the ills of the internet.
Thirdly, the new Secretary of State has a promising track record on this issue given her work on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. Indeed her comments on the problems the Higher Education Bill was designed to resolve could equally be applied to the problems the Online Safety Bill will create: “the damage that the erosion of free speech causes goes well beyond the classroom. It hits our communities, where ngenuity and diversity of ideas have flowed from throughout our country’s history. It stifles creativity, where some of our greatest artists and composers have made their name challenging the accepted wisdom of the day. The implications for our economy and our public life are catastrophic.” The new Secretary of State for DCMS should apply the dictum that what is legal to say should be legal to type.
It is never too late for the government to listen and heed the extensive warnings to prevent bad regulation. In this briefing, we have highlighted the five key areas for decision-makers to consider in order to protect free speech for adults. These changes are not an attempt to ‘water down’ the Bill but to purposefully demarcate protections that are only appropriate for children as distinguished from adults:
1. Remove the ‘legal but harmful’ provision completely
2. Prevent the algorithmic censorship of lawful speech
3. Illegality should be decided by courts not corporates
4. Private communication and encryption need protection
5. Parliament should be sovereign
Download our new briefing on the Online Safety Bill here or read it below.
The urgent need to introduce anti-SLAPP measures, proposed by the UK government in July, has been underscored by the recent announcement that a UK registered company and a Kazakhstan endowment fund have issued legal proceedings against a number of UK media outlets.
In January and February 2022, openDemocracy and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), amongst other outlets, published separate reports on the Nazarbayev Fund and Jusan Technologies Ltd. The Nazarbayev Fund is a Kazakhstan university and schools endowment fund, associated with the former president, Nursultan Nazarbayev and Jusan Technologies Ltd is a UK registered company that controlled over $7.8bn in gross asset value. This included an online marketplace, a mobile phone operator, financial services and shopping centres. According to the reports, the Nazarbayev Fund owned a controlling stake in the company via an intermediary until late 2021, raising questions as to why a UK company held some of Kazakhstan’s wealth.
As a result of their public interest reporting, TBIJ and openDemocracy are among the media outlets who have been threatened with legal action by lawyers instructed by both the Nazarbayev Fund and Jusan Technologies Ltd. There should be no question that investigating and reporting on the financial interests of authoritarian leaders, both during their time in office and afterwards, and entities connected with them, is clearly in the public interest. For this to be met with threats of costly and time-consuming legal action constitutes a significant and severe threat to media freedom and the public’s right to know.
The undersigned organisations call for the legal action against openDemocracy and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism to be dropped and stand in solidarity with all outlets facing SLAPPs for their reporting. We also reiterate our calls to the UK Government to be both bold and swift with their proposals to bring forward anti-SLAPP legislation to ensure all public interest reporting is robustly protected against abusive lawsuits.
Index on Censorship
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
Blueprint for Free Speech
Tax Policy Associates Ltd
ARTICLE 19
Spotlight on Corruption
Justice for Journalists Foundation
Whistleblowing International Network
Public Interest News Foundation
Rory Peck Trust
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
National Union of Journalists
English PEN
Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID)
The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Transparency International UK
PEN International
Global Witness
Society of Authors
Protect
The last week has been unprecedented in global news – although I do feel that every time we see the word unprecedented to refer to current events we’re just tempting fate to make it even worse. Our news has been dominated by crucially important and life-changing stories – the economic turmoil in the UK; the impact of global inflation; the real-life effects of Hurricanes Fiona and Ian on the east coast of Canada and the USA; Putin’s annexation of four more Ukrainian territories; the election of the most right-wing prime minister since Mussolini in Italy and; the suspected nation-state-orchestrated sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. This has been a busy news week. But beyond the headlines there have been so many other stories, other crises, other issues that in a ‘normal’ week (if there is such a thing anymore) would have demanded our attention.
So this week – I want to do a round-up of what we’ve missed as the world has become an even scarier place for too many people. To remind us all of what else is happening in the world that we’ve missed as we have been glued to the news that is struggling to report on everything that has happened.
These are just a few of the dozens of stories that many of us missed this week while the world is in turmoil. As ever the role of Index is to make sure that these stories and those of dissidents are not ignored or forgotten.
The death last week of the UK’s Queen Elizabeth, at the age of 96, shocked the nation and others throughout the world. Many would agree with our CEO Ruth Smeeth, who said she was a “formidable leader” and a “stabilising force through many periods of global turmoil”. Many would also take a different stance.
There are worrying indications, however, that those who do not feel the same way about the Queen and her legacy are being silenced, including the arrest of a number of protesters in Edinburgh, one displaying an “Abolish Monarchy” placard, and others being threatened by the police with arrest in London and Oxford.
Asked about the Edinburgh arrests, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Liz Truss, who was only appointed by the Queen days before her death, said: “This is a period of national mourning for the vast majority of the country, but the fundamental right to protest remains the keystone of our democracy.”
The arrests come after a year in which the British government has made changes and called for further changes to many areas of legislation governing the right to protest and freedom of expression.
Her Majesty’s death also comes just months after the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 came into force. This gives the police much greater powers when it comes to restricting protests. Previously protests could only be stopped if they risked “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”. A belief that “public nuisance” may be caused is now sufficient.
Speaking on the arrests in Scotland, Ruth Smeeth, Index on Censorship’s CEO, said: “It is deeply concerning to see the arrests being made. The fundamental right to freedom of expression, including the right to protest, is something to be protected regardless of circumstance.
“These arrests come at a time of national debate around the new Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act covering England and Wales, legislation that Index raised serious concerns about during its passage through Parliament.
“People across the country and beyond continue to mourn the loss of the Queen, a loss felt keenly by so many. However, we must guard against this event being used, by accident or design, to erode in any way the freedom of expression that citizens of this country enjoy.”
We will use this live blog to draw attention to highlight events that appear to threaten our fundamental right to express views peacefully, whether for or against the monarchy.