In the wake of this month’s race riots, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has declared the draconian Online Safety Act 2023 “not fit for purpose” and urged the Labour Government to “very, very quickly” review the legislation.
“I think very swiftly the government has realised there needs to be amendments to the Online Safety Act,” Khan said in an interview with the Guardian. “I think what the government should do very quickly is check if it is fit for purpose. I think it’s not fit for purpose.”
Khan said there were “things that could be done by responsible social media platforms” but added: “If they don’t sort their own house out, regulation is coming.”
Below is a brief overview of some aspects of the legislation the Mayor of London thinks isn’t “fit for purpose” and that urgently needs strengthening to more adequately police people’s online speech and behaviour.
- Under Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2023, existing terrorism, harassment and public order offences are termed “priority illegal content” and providers (including platforms which enable user-to-user interaction like Facebook, TikTok or X) have to prevent users from encountering it. The 2023 Act incentivises removal of this content by granting Ofcom the power to levy large fines if this content is not removed.
- Part 10 of the Act (in force as of 10th January 2024) creates new communications offences, including “false communications” (s.179) and “threatening communications” (s.181). For the purpose of these offences, it is important to note that a person can be liable even if they did not create the content of the message that they “send” (i.e., if they post, publish or transmit – including via oral communication like voice notes). A message can consist of, or include, a hyperlink to other content.
- A person commits a threatening communications offence if they send a message conveying a threat of serious harm (death, serious injury, rape, assault by penetration, or serious financial loss) and at the time of sending it intends that, or is reckless about, someone encountering the threat and fearing it will be carried out by the sender or someone else.
- There is a clear overlap between this offence and the offence of sending a “menacing” communication under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003. Unlike the s.127 offence, a conviction for the threatening communications offence under the 2023 Act allows for harsher sentences to be given out, i.e., imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both). This suggests that the threatening communications offence is designed to cover behaviour that is more serious than that covered by the s.127 offence.
- A person commits a false communications offence if they send a message conveying information that they know to be false, and at the time of sending the message they intend it to cause “non-trivial” psychological or physical harm to a “likely audience” (i.e., an individual who could reasonably be foreseen to encounter the message or its content) and they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message.
We could go on. And on…
It’s now abundantly clear that following recent public disorder an anti-free speech ratchet effect is being set in motion, by Mayor Khan but also by many others of his political persuasion.
The crackdown, when it comes, won’t just target those directly participating in or inciting violence. What will happen, just as it always happens, is that new or newly strengthened laws will be wielded against those who dissent from ‘progressive’ orthodoxy.
If you’re an FSU supporter, now might be a good time to become a member.
Click the link below to join us and help support the work we do, standing up for the speech rights of our 14,000+ members in an increasingly censorious culture.
The enemies of free speech fight in packs. It’s defenders need to band together too. Join the FSU. Together we can cancel cancel culture.
