Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom The Internet

New UK Internet Law Raises Free Speech Concerns, Say Civil Liberties Campaigners (politico.eu) 49

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Britain's proposed new internet law entails a government power grab with worrying implications for freedom of speech, according to civil liberties groups, academics and the tech industry. From a report: The groups are concerned the proposed Online Safety Bill would hand to Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden disproportionate powers in the name of protecting users from "harmful" content. The Bill allow him to "modify" a code of practice -- the blueprint created by the regulator Ofcom for how tech companies should protect users -- to ensure it "reflects government policy." Critics say such powers, which were set out in a draft of the proposed law published in May and due for imminent scrutiny by MPs and peers, could undermine the regulator's independence and potentially politicize the regulation of the internet.

"The notion that a political appointee will have the unilateral power to alter the legal boundaries of free speech based on the political whims of the moment frankly makes the blood run cold," said Heather Burns, policy manager at the Open Rights Group. The draft bill -- which hasn't yet begun its formal passage through parliament -- is due to be checked line-by-line by legislators before being brought back to parliament later this year, where it will then pass through the stages it needs to end up on the statute books. The U.K. government and opposition parties are currently finalizing which lawmakers will sit on the pre-legislative committee.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New UK Internet Law Raises Free Speech Concerns, Say Civil Liberties Campaigners More

New UK Internet Law Raises Free Speech Concerns, Say Civil Liberties Campaigners

Comments Filter:

  • Poor Boris... (Score:4, Informative)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @12:24PM (#61537380)
    ...still hasn't got over that time he had to hide in fridge to get away from the nasty wasty press men with their difficulty wifficulty questions. Now he & his chums can get their own back with this new law.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

      Freedom of speech to the conservatives means freedom to have conservative lies spread on any platform of their choice.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Really? You think it started there?

      The entire basis of Brexit, the entire purpose the Brexit supporting political elite wanted it was to "take back control", they loathed the fact there was a supra-national entity that would reprimand them if they engaged in their fascist tendencies. They loathed an entity forged in the aftermath of World War II in large part by people like Churchill to prevent fascist governments ever being able to turn a European nation into a dictatorship ever again.

      The whole point in Br

      • Just one question: You actually think the EU in Brussels would be more likely to stop some sort of fascist movement in the UK more than a local UK government? I suppose if your scenario is that the UK government is already heading toward fascism then the EU might have stood more in their way, but from the outside looking in (I'm American) it would be a toss up as to who can more out-woke and out-commie the other: the UK or the EU. At least with corona-fascism, it would appear the UK has a bit of a lead on t

        • Each European country has its own CV laws. Spain for example has had no home confinement since spring 2020, and since then just two weeks of bar/restaurant total closure. France has only just got its restaurants back after months of total closure.

  • Start sending out Guy Fawkes masks.

  • Anyone who has read the various Wikileaks releases (or History for that matter) knows we've been lied to over and over again by Governments and Corporations.

    That is the kind of misinformation these bills are meant to protect - by ensuring that contradicting information is deemed 'harmful' and stripped from the internet. ..sure - they'll be sold to the public as 'protect the children' but wiser people know better.

  • We keep getting stuck in this very same eddy of free speech. I think it comes down to historical confusion. Put another way, it's the conflation of two very different versions of speech.

    To my knowledge, the original idea of protected free speech was this:

    One mustn't be persecuted for their [stated] beliefs --
    - I believe in my god,
    - I like gay rights,
    - I worship satan,
    - my mother's awesome,
    - e

    • Sounds like a lot of handwaving bullshit to say "let's censor", there Lefty. Why not just come out and say it? Next you'll be spouting off some shit about "shouting fire in a crowded theater" or other favorite censor-tropes we've all heard before. Quit being mealy-mouthed, cut to the chase, and tell us what rights you'd like to take and from whom, because it's clear that's what you want despite your fucking bullet-lists.

      • Oh, I think I was pretty straight-up in my saying that there is a lot of speech that must not by protected, and a lot of speech that ought to be illegal.

        The good news is that most of that speech has been illegal for a very long time. Inciting to riot, hate speech, death threats, have always been illegal. I'm actually not suggesting that anything new be made illegal.

        I am, however, saying that in an age of instant broadcast communication by anyone to everyone, that more speech ought to be covered by those v

        • As you say, genius, those types of expression are *already* illegal. So, I guess you are saying we need to ramp up our enforcement against illegal unprotected speech then? Censorship is a big priority for you, right? You are advocating censorship. You might be comfortable and snotty with folks concerning the limits of the censorship you want, but you are still making some lame/bitchmade argument in favor of it. I don't sense any "nuance" here, just some hiding behind what you'd *really* like to do, but can'

          • Your version of free speech only works with a lot of education. Dumb people believe dumb speech, and there's a lot of dumb speech. That's the dangerous free speech.

            So yeah, there's a lot of censorship required with a dumb population. Look at yours.

            • Authoritarians love to pretend free speech is a treat you get for being good. It's not, it's a natural right. It belongs to the "dumb" people as well as those as "enlightened" as you. The difference is that even the "dumb" people you scorn have enough morality to admit they have to put up with speech they don't like. BTW, fuck your country: mine (imperfect as it is) has free speech embedded in our highest law. Yours almost certainly doesn't.

              • Mine has human rights built into our highest law. And mine taught it to yours, by the way.

                Statistically, it's a good bet that you are 17-24 years old, don't have a house, don't have children, and don't have a fortune to protect.

                Here's the thing that you haven't (yet) experienced:

                It's really super-easy to convince three teenagers to break into a house and steal stuff.
                It's really super-easy to convince a toddler in a playground to eat some candy.
                It's really super-easy to fool dozens of adults into harming an

                • Mine has human rights built into our highest law. And mine taught it to yours, by the way.

                  Wrong. Learn your history. The Magna Carta is not the Consitution (which is better, hands down). There are similarities but keep in mind we kicked your asses out of here and straight back to King George over some of the deficiencies (taxation without representation being the foremost reason). The only example your shitty colonial empire set was how to fuck around and lose what you have, just like you guys did with all your colonies.

                  Statistically, it's a good bet that you are 17-24 years old, don't have a house, don't have children, and don't have a fortune to protect.

                  Well one-out-of-three guesses was correct. I don't have children. Wrong on a

    • But telling others what they should do is something altogether different --
      - You mustn't believe this,
      - don't vote for him,
      - she's terrible,
      - your god's the wrong god,
      - healthcare will destroy your freedom,
      - she's a criminal.

      I have no desire to protect someone's "right" to tell others what to do. That's the very definition of "inciting".

      Almost every line of above is more often than not legitimate and shall not be censored.

      (1) When something is factually wrong, it's perfectly okay to tell people to don't believe it in peaceful manner. It is only wrong when government wielding it as weapon and censor other people's belief just because the government think it is wrong. Dangerous beliefs that actually harm public safely can only do the harm when they act. Arrest for the act, not the saying.

      (2) Persuade people to vote / not vote someone is

      • I think you're used to a small country, with slow communications, where everyone's the same and has the same interests.

        Time and time again, you'll see studies (of your own population actually) concluding that it only takes a very small portion of a population (way less than 10%) to create chaos and ruin.

        Imagine your country, but five times the size, with high-speed communication. The thing is, compared to 100 years ago, that's where you are today.

        You'll collapse. If you're in the USA, your population alrea

        • It is a legitimate observation that a bigger size country may make chaos and ruin easier. More populous, more radicals. The solution is not censorship and control of speech. The solution is separation of power and, sometimes, separation of country.

          Don't let civil matter be under the hand of strong central government. Keep the effective legislative region small. Less powerful is the central government, less likely radical people will care and gather to oppose it. If a country is consist of tribes that can

  • "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    -C.S.Lewis

    • Knocked it out of the park with that one. It's so goddamn true.

      • What's worse is that the robber barons now use their gains to lobby for the tyranny, all the while ensuring they themselves are not subject to it. Maybe they always have and Lewis didn't realise. Or he did, but didn't want to contemplate or articulate the dystopia that scenario presents:

        They don't want their cupidity to be satiated, but at some point it becomes exhausting to keep it going. It's far easier to convince others to continue on their behalf. If these others can be also convinced it's for "the gre

        • “When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you – you know your nation is doomed.” -Ayn Rand

  • ... the complete lack of technical knowledge shown by UK government ministers to date...

    OR ... a sudden awareness, due to actually hiring people who know WTF they are doing...

    Either way, it is a disaster waiting to happen - just another one in the list of "authoritarianism by stealth."

    We are still somewhat lucky that we have at least some watchdogs with teeth, but are unfortunately unlucky in that the current incumbents sitting on the front bench, have treated the entire house of commons with contempt to da

Slashdot Top Deals

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.

Close