Uncategorised

Paralegal

Events and Mactaggart Programme Assistant

CONTRACT: 0.6 FTE

SALARY: £28,000 per annum (£16,800)

DEPARTMENT: Legal

REPORTS: Chief Legal Counsel

PURPOSE: To assist the FSU Legal Team with administrative and other tasks

LOCATION: You will mostly be working from home, and will only need to commit to coming to London one day per month for our monthly all-staff meeting.

Who are we?

The Free Speech Union is a non-partisan, mass-membership public interest body. We stand up for the speech rights of our 11,000+ members and campaign for free speech more widely. Our in-house legal team, working with our casework team, coordinate legal support for members in difficulty. Our research arm publishes briefings on where free speech needs to be better protected and our lobbying arm focuses on free-speech related legislation. Our events arm organises events (“speakeasies”) and stages regular public discussions and debates. 

The FSU has sister organisations in South Africa and New Zealand, with more to come. We have an exciting journey ahead and we’re looking for more talented individuals to join our organisation. 

The role

The role is a unique opportunity to join the legal team. You will play a key role in free speech disputes taking place in workplaces, universities, professional associations, voluntary organisations and the courts. 

We need someone who:

• has excellent administrative skills
• has good communication skills
• is reliable and conscientious
• writes clearly and concisely (good spelling, grammar and punctuation)
• is happy to work flexible hours

We act for anyone who becomes a member, subject to our discretion, whatever their politics.

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

• Preparing letters to members and other basic correspondence
• Creating bundles of documents
• Formatting documents
• Drafting the FSU’s legal newsletter
• Keeping our case management system up to date
• Gathering documents relating to legislation and policy
• Setting up and maintaining FSU crowdfunders
• Document and diary management
• Note-taking
• Organising legal events
• Creating template letters and documents
• Summarising legal cases

PERSON SPECIFICATION

Essential

Experience in an administrative or secretarial role.

Good working knowledge of the legal sector in the United Kingdom.

Good writing skills, with an emphasis on correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Good Microsoft Word and Excel skills.

Agreeable – good interpersonal skills with people at all levels, particularly those in difficult situations.

The ability to work flexible hours which may include weekends and evenings.

Homeworking – must have premises, equipment and systems to enable working from home.

Experience in administrative or secretarial roles.

Desirable

Experience working as a paralegal or legal executive.

Legal training (BA, LLB, GDL).

Experience organising events.

Experience in the use of case management systems, e.g. SalesForce.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Applicants should send a CV and introductory letter to [email protected] by Monday 24^th July. The FSU is actively recruiting for this role and may withdraw it at its discretion. 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Benefits 

• Employer pension contribution of eight percent
• Health insurance (BUPA)
• The autonomy and flexibility of working from home.
• Full access to our learning and development programme.
• 28 paid holidays per calendar year (pro rata) including public holidays (annual allotment increases with tenure). 
• The chance to get together with the entire FSU team face-to-face, at our away days and events.

Probationary Period  

This post is subject to a three-month probationary period. 

Review of this Job Description

This job description is intended as an outline of the general areas of activity and will be amended in light of the changing needs of the organisation. To be reviewed in conjunction with the post holder. 

The FSU is an equal opportunity employer and will consider qualified applicants without regard to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex, religion or belief. 

CONTRACT: 0.4 FTE  

SALARY: Up to £25,000 pro rated 

DEPARTMENT: Education and Events 

REPORTS: Jointly to the Education and Events Director and the Director of Case Operations and Outreach 

PURPOSE: The role has two aspects. One, to assist the Education and Events Director in the delivery of a varied programme of events for FSU members, specialist audiences and the general public. Two, to assist in the administration of the Ian Mactaggart Programme, a funding scheme aimed at fostering a culture of open debate, independent thinking and free expression amongst young people in the UK, especially students.  

HOURS: The administrative aspects of the post could be done from home (although we do require you to attend a monthly in-person meeting), but the candidate must be available to provide on-the-ground support at events. These usually take place on mid-week evenings, most often in central London, but also in regional cities and online, numbering between one and three per month. 

LOCATION: Home-based for the administrative aspects with ability to travel to central London and to other major UK cities as required. Travel (and if necessary, accommodation) costs would be covered by the FSU. 

Who are we? 

The Free Speech Union is a non-partisan, mass-membership public interest body. We stand up for the speech rights of our 11,000+ members and campaign for free speech more widely. We have an exciting journey ahead and we’re looking for more talented individuals to join our organisation.  

The role 

This role is an excellent opportunity to develop skills in organising a wide range of events for diverse audiences around the UK; to acquire expertise and build contacts across the free speech landscape and to understand how free speech is situated within the broader political context. You will engage with hundreds of people of all ages and backgrounds and have plenty of opportunities to contribute ideas to the development of FSU Events and the Ian Mactaggart Programme. 

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES 

Events Assistant 

• Supporting the Education and Events Director with a busy schedule of events, from specialist online seminars to large public debates, from book launches to private forums, from comedy nights to manning stalls at major conferences. 
• Tasks involve planning kit-lists, transporting (lightweight) equipment and materials, producing printed matter, meeting and greeting attendees, taking payments, ensuring speakers are looked after, supporting volunteer staff. 

Programme Assistant 

• Assisting the Directors in managing the programme, including diarising meetings, tracking applications and funding, writing short reports. 
• Responding to emails using Outlook, keeping records in Excel, writing reports in Word. 
• Meeting with student applicants, online or in-person. 

• Other reasonable duties that may be required. 

PERSON SPECIFICATION 

Essential 

• Outgoing, approachable, personable and confident. 

• Would suit a recent graduate or current postgraduate. 
• Strong interest in politics and current affairs and a passion for free speech. 
• Well-organised, calm under pressure and willingness to muck in as required. 
• Excellent communication skills with superb knowledge of the English language and an eye for detail. 
• Good IT skills, including Microsoft Office and Outlook. 

Desirable 

• Prior involvement with debating, free speech or similar relevant societies or organisations. 

APPLICATION PROCESS 

To apply, please send a CV and cover letter of no more than 750 words to [email protected]. The cover letter should answer the following questions: 

– How will your skills and experience enable you to deliver all aspects of the role? 

– When can you start?  

We are seeking to appoint in Summer 2023. Applications will close on Friday 30th June with interviews to take place remotely thereafter. The FSU is actively recruiting for this role and may withdraw it at its discretion. 

JOB TITLE: Legal Officer

CONTRACT: Full-time

SALARY: Up to £45K per annum.

DEPARTMENT: Legal

REPORTS TO: Chief Legal Counsel

PURPOSE: To assist the Chief Legal Counsel and pro-bono lawyers with legal research, casework, drafting and preparation of documents.

Who are we?

The Free Speech Union is a non-partisan, mass-membership public interest body. We stand up for the speech rights of our 11,000 members and campaign for free speech more widely. Our in-house legal counsel, working with our casework team, coordinates legal representation for members in difficulty. Our research arm publishes briefings on where free speech needs to be better protected. Our events arm organises events in pubs (“speakeasies”) and stages regular public debates.

The FSU has sister organisations in South African and New Zealand, with more to come. We have an exciting journey ahead and we’re looking for more talented individuals to join our organisation.

The role

This role is a unique opportunity to focus on the legal disputes and policy debates concerning free speech in the United Kingdom. Unlike any law firm, free speech is not a side-line – it is everything we do. This role will involve you closely in the free speech disputes taking place in our workplaces, universities, professional associations, voluntary organisations and the courts. It will give you an opportunity to work with solicitors and barristers on free speech cases, to assist members in need of help, and to advocate for changes to policy and the law.

The work is fast-paced and intellectually stimulating. We need someone who can get to the nub of a complicated issue with legal, political and ethical dimensions, write clearly and concisely, and apply legal knowledge to real-life disputes. We act for anyone who becomes a member, subject to our discretion, whatever their politics.

KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

• Carrying out legal research;
• Drafting correspondence (including public letters), contracts, research notes and other documents for review by the Chief Legal Counsel;
• Interviewing members regarding the nature of their case and taking attendance notes;
• Preparing instructions for external lawyers;
• Assembling bundles of documents;
• Assisting the Chief Legal Counsel in recruiting a network of pro-free speech lawyers;
• Where appropriate, representing members at – e.g. – panel hearings;
• Assisting the Case Management Director, the Case Officers and the Chief Legal Counsel with incoming cases;
• Drafting, and assisting with the drafting, of articles, blogposts and evidence to public consultations and Parliamentary select committees on a range of free speech issues and the FSU’s activities.

PERSON SPECIFICATION

Essential

Qualifying law degree (e.g. LLB, BA, GDL) or equivalent knowledge gained from working in the legal sector.

Good working knowledge of legal protections for free speech in the United Kingdom.

Good writing skills, with an emphasis on correct English spelling, grammar and punctuation, clarity and concision.

Experience of and aptitude for researching and summarising the law.

Good Microsoft Word and Excel skills.

Agreeable – good interpersonal skills with people at all levels, particularly those in difficult situations, with a professional and courteous manner.

The ability to work flexible hours which may include weekends or evenings.

Homeworking – must have premises, equipment and systems to enable productive working from home.

Desirable

Experience working as a paralegal or lawyer.

Previous experience in case-work.

Experience in the use of case management systems, e.g. Sales Force.

Working knowledge of UK employment law and public law.

Knowledge and experience of regulatory compliance, particularly GDPR.

Applicants should send a CV and introductory letter to [email protected]. The FSU is actively recruiting for this role and may withdraw it at its discretion.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Benefits

• Employer pension contribution of eight per cent.
• Health insurance (BUPA).
• The autonomy and flexibility of a remote-first business or a co-working space.
• Full access to our learning and development programme.
• 28 paid holidays per calendar year (pro rata) including public holidays (annual allotment increases with tenure).
• The chance to get together with the entire FSU team face-to-face, at our away days and events. *Depending on restrictions in place due to Covid-19.

Probationary Period

This post is subject to the requirements of a three-month probationary scheme for new staff only.

Review of this Job Description

This job description is intended as an outline of the general areas of activity and will be amended in the light of the changing needs of the organisation. To be reviewed in conjunction with the post holder.

The FSU values diversity. We are an equal opportunity employer and consider qualified applicants without regard to Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Marriage or Civil Partnership, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex.

The Online Safety Bill returns to the Commons next week (Mail, Epoch Times), and the latest iteration of the legislation seems, on the face of it, to be an improvement on the previous version — although the devil will be in the detail.

Plans to introduce a new harmful communications offence in England and Wales, making it a crime punishable by up to two years in jail to send or post a message with the intention of causing “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress” have been scrapped (iNews, TechCrunch).

It means that the new version of the Online Safety Bill won’t criminalise saying something, whether online or offline. That’s good news. As Kemi Badenoch pointed out during this summer’s Conservative Party leadership contest, it’s not the role of government to be “legislating for hurt feelings” (FT).

The bad news is, the new communications offence was intended to replace some of the more egregious offences in the Communications Act 2003 (henceforth ‘CA’). As things stand, the offences in the Malicious Communications Act 1998 (‘MCA’) will be repealed, but not section 127 of the CA.

The latter will remain on the statute books, and the FSU will continue to campaign for its removal. The restrictions imposed on what you can say, whether online or offline, by the CA are, we believe, out of date and may, in part, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights — that’s a claim we’re hoping to test in Strasbourg as part of FSU member Joe Kelly’s forthcoming appeal against his conviction and sentencing for posting a tweet that contravened the CA, section 127(1)(b). (You can read about that case here; and our latest briefing document on the CA is available here).

That said, this latest tweak to the Online Safety Bill does at least solve one problem the FSU has previously flagged up to the Government about the impact the legislation was likely to have in a multi-national state like the UK. Thanks to a little-known flaw, the legislation required category 1 providers to remove content that is illegal in every part of the UK if it’s illegal in any part of the UK.

The critical issue here was that the Online Safety Bill would only have repealed the relevant MCA offences in England and Wales, not Northern Ireland, thereby creating a risk that social media platforms within scope of the new online regulatory regime would not only have had to remove content that is unlawful under the new harmful communications offence, but content that was unlawful under the existing MCA, since that will remain on the statute book in Northern Ireland. In other words, when it came to what you could and couldn’t say online, the new harmful communications offence wouldn’t have replaced one set of rules prohibiting speech with another; it would have just added a new set.

Thankfully, that problem won’t now arise.

Another positive is that the clause in the Bill which obliges providers to remove content everywhere in the UK if it’s illegal anywhere in the UK won’t now apply to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act — a piece of legislation that FSU Scotland Advisory Council member Jamie Gillies has previously described as “an authoritarian mess” (Spiked). The Government amended the Bill in July, so providers won’t be obliged to remove speech that’s prohibited by new laws that have been made by the devolved parliaments (Critic).

Fears that Nicola Sturgeon might become the content moderator for the whole of the UK can be laid to rest – at least for the time being.

Although as you may have guessed, the key phrase there is “for the time being”. Because it’s worth bearing in mind that a future Labour government could change that with a single, one-line amendment to the Bill. And given there’s now a chance Labour will form a minority UK government supported by the SNP after the next election, this is an issue that may well come back to haunt the Conservative Party in years to come.

In sum, the latest version of the Bill won’t criminalise saying something, whether online or offline, that causes “psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress” or, in Kemi Badenoch’s words, “hurt feelings”. For that, at least, we should be grateful.

Another positive in the Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan’s revised version of Bill is that clause 13, which would have forced providers to set out in their terms of service how they intended to “address” content that’s legal but harmful to adults, has now been scrapped. That’s good news, of course, but we shouldn’t exaggerate how much of a win this is. Some papers are reporting this as removing any reference to ‘legal but harmful’ from the Bill, yet the phrase ‘legal but harmful’ has never actually appeared in any versions of this Bill.

It’s also worth pointing out that thanks to an amendment the FSU successfully lobbied for in July, the previous version of the Bill would have made it clear that one of the ways providers could ‘address’ this content would have been to do absolutely nothing (you can watch Adam Afriyie MP setting out that amendment in the House of Commons here).

The Times this week suggested that “the Government has dropped plans to force social media and search sites to take down material that is considered harmful but not illegal”, but that’s not correct. It never planned to force sites to do that.

The FSU’s objection to clause 13 was always more nuanced. It was that if the Government published a list of legal content it considered harmful to adults and created an obligation on providers to say how they intended to ‘address’ it, that would ‘nudge’ them to remove it.

Even though the option to do nothing was available to providers in the previous version of the Bill, it would have been a brave social media company that chose this option, given that the Government had designated the content as harmful to adults.

Another objection to the previous version is that, according to its provisions, the list of legal content that was harmful to adults was going to be included in a statutory instrument and not in the Bill itself. One concern the FSU and other free speech groups had about this arrangement was that it created a hostage to fortune — once the initial list of legal content had been drawn up it could easily be added to by another statutory instrument, thus creating a ratchet effect.  

In that the person occupying the role of secretary of state now — or in the future — would be able to use the mechanism of the SI to lean on the tech giants to remove speech they disliked or disapproved of, the Government of the day would possess unprecedented powers to restrict speech, particularly if it removed the option to do nothing in response to the enlarged Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Despite the previous version of the legislation having only reached Committee stage in the House of Commons, this ratcheting effect on our civil liberties had already started to happen in real time. Back in June, for instance, SNP and Labour politicians on the Committee scrutinising the Bill laid an amendment to include “‘health-related misinformation and disinformation’ as a recognised form of lawful but ‘harmful’” speech. That found itself into the ‘indicative list’ of content that was going to be designated legal but harmful to adults published by Nadine Dorries, then the Culture Secretary. (FSU General Secretary Toby Young has written about the Bill’s ‘ratchet effect’ for the Critic.)

In the new version of the Bill, however, the list of legal content that’s harmful to adults won’t be included in a supplementary piece of legislation, but on the face of the Bill. (It’s not being described that way by the Government, but that’s essentially what it is.)

In the latest DCMS press release (29th November), the list is set out as follows: “legal content relating to suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, or content that is abusive, or that incites hatred, on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sex, gender reassignment or sexual orientation”. That’s almost identical to the ‘indicative list’ of legal but harmful adult content set out by Nadine Dorries in July, which rather suggests that reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. (Although, credit where credit’s due, the list no longer makes reference to ‘health related misinformation’). The FSU expects similar wording to appear in the new version of the Bill when it returns to Parliament next week.

Another key change is that the new Bill attempts to shift the locus of responsibility away from ‘paternalist providers’ and towards ‘empowered users’. Instead of saying how they intend to ‘address’ harmful content in their terms of service, providers will now have to say what tools they’re going to make available to their users who don’t want to be exposed to it. That’s what Michelle Donelan means when she says in the Telegraph that, “I have removed ‘legal but harmful’ in favour of a new system based on choice and freedom”.

What we’re talking about here is essentially the social media equivalent of a ‘safe browsing’ mode. That’s an improvement, not because the previous version of the Bill forced the big social media platforms to ban it outright — it didn’t — but because it won’t ‘nudge’ them into doing so in the way the previous version did.

Essentially, the Bill is signalling to providers that if they want to make this content available to adult users in an unrestricted form they can, and the Government would have no objection, even though it considers it harmful. The only proviso is that if providers do intend to make this content available to their adult users, they have to provide them with the tools to restrict it if they wish to do so — the social media equivalent of a ‘safe browsing’ mode.

On the face of it, this is an attractive approach. It empowers adult users to choose what content they’d like to see, with the state no longer nudging providers into restricting legal but harmful content for everyone, regardless of their appetite for this material.

Nevertheless, the FSU has some concerns about this ‘user empowerment’ model. For instance, there’s a significant risk that the big providers (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) will make the ‘safe’ mode their default setting, so if adult users want to see ‘lawful but awful’ content they will have to ‘opt in’.

That may result in perfectly lawful yet politically contentious views — e.g., gender critical statements about transwomen not being women, or the need to ban transwomen from women’s spaces — being blocked by default since woke identity groups will argue that any such views constitute abuse or incitement to hatred based on their protected characteristics.

Of course, users would have the option of adjusting their settings so they can see that content,  but some won’t want to in case, say, a colleague sees something ‘hateful’ over their shoulder and reports them to HR.

And what about those who won’t even be aware they have a choice, or are aware but don’t know how to do anything about it?  

We know that that’s likely to be a lot of people thanks to research carried out by behavioural scientists on what’s known as ‘choice architecture’ — i.e., the idea that the way in which customers are presented with choices will influence their subsequent decision-making processes. As countless studies in that area have now demonstrated, one of the most powerful tools available to organisations wishing to ‘nudge’ consumers down certain behavioural pathways is the humble ‘default setting’. Why? Because consumers tend not to take active steps to change systems possessed of a built-in default mode.

So the devil here will be in the detail of what each social media platform’s version of ‘safe browsing’ looks like. If ‘safe mode’ becomes the default setting, for instance, how easy will it be to switch it off? It’s an important question. As one recent study put it, “if defaults have an effect because consumers are not aware that they have choices… [they] impinge on liberty”.

And what about politically contentious websites like The Conservative Woman (TCW) and Novara Media – perhaps even the Spectator? Will their content be judged ‘unsafe’ by providers and only made available to users who ‘opt in’? That sounds far-fetched, but TCW was blocked by default by the Three mobile network earlier this year.

When the FSU looked into it, we discovered it was because the British Board of Film Classification, to which Three had outsourced the job of deciding which websites were ‘safe’, had given TCW an 18 rating. So Three restricted access to TCW for its users because its default settings excluded any websites the BBFC classed as only suitable for adults.

In light of this, it’s not unrealistic to think that under the new system politically contentious websites like TCW will be judged unsafe by the big social media platforms and banned by default (although not outright). And that will have a negative impact on their commercial viability. Not only will it limit their reach, but it will also make it harder for them to get advertising because most companies are concerned about ‘brand safety’ and won’t want to advertise on websites that are deemed unsafe by companies like Facebook. To a certain extent, that happens already, but it could get significantly worse after this Bill becomes law.

There are other free speech issues with the new Bill that Big Brother Watch has flagged up.

Taken as a whole, however, the FSU believes this version of the Online Safety Bill is an improvement on the previous version. Michelle Donelan has had to steer a difficult path between those of us lobbying for more free speech protections and a vast array of groups petitioning her to make the Bill more restrictive, including factions within her own party.

We wrote to the Principal of Birth College, a performing arts college in South London, after an employee tipped us off about an all-staff email demanding they include their gender pronouns in their email signatures, as well as the Pride and BLM flags. In the letter, we pointed out that this was likely to be a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – and the Principal quickly backtracked. You can read some coverage of the story in the Daily Mail.