Lord Frost leads Tory rebellion over Online Safety Bill saying forcing firms to curb ‘legal but harmful’ content will allow ‘woke’ tech giants to stifle free speech
- He is at the head of Tory opposition to the Online Safety Bill proposals
- Unhappy at section demanding platforms tackle ‘legal but harmful’ content
- They claim the clause will allow websites to use ‘woke’ bias in their algorithms
Former minister Lord Frost has demanded the Government takes a ‘fresh look’ at plans to regulate online material over fears it will stifle freedom of speech.
He is at the head of Tory opposition to the Online Safety Bill over a section that demands platforms tackle ‘legal but harmful’ content.
They claim that the clause will allow websites to use ‘woke’ bias in their algorithms and moderation processes to remove points of view that are legitimate.
His intervention comes after MPs warned that the bill will not protect the media’s freedom of speech because it could allow tech giants to use algorithms to remove journalistic reporting in error.
The Bill will compel platforms to material including terrorist promotion and child porn as ‘priority’ illegal content, meaning they will be forced to protect users from exposure rather than waiting for it to be flagged.
The Tory politicians do not oppose this but fear that parts of the bill need revising to avoid possible over-reach.
Lord Frost told the Telegraph: ‘The Government would be wise to take a fresh look at the Online Safety Bill before beginning discussion in Parliament. Aspects of it present a real risk to freedom of expression in this country.’
Lord Frost is at the head of Tory opposition to the Online Safety Bill over a section that demands platforms tackle ‘legal but harmful’ content.
They claim that the clause will allow websites to use ‘woke’ bias in their algorithms and moderation processes to remove points of view that are legitimate.
Steve Baker, another former Brexit minister, added: ‘Some people will take offence at more or less anything. Does that make it harmful? Again we see a lack of clarity that could be dangerous.’
A government spokesman said: ‘This Bill has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny via a joint committee of both houses. Delaying its introduction will only hold back putting accountability on tech platforms to keep children and the vulnerable safe online.’
The legislation is dubbed the Nick Clegg law, as the former deputy prime minister is now vice president for global affairs and communications at Facebook.
Children’s charities and worried families have long campaigned for social media firms to be prosecuted if they fail to crack down on self-harm material.
The calls grew louder after the death of Molly Russell, the 14-year-old who took her own life in 2017 after looking at graphic self-harm images on Instagram.
However defenders of free speech are concerned the threat of criminal prosecution could cause tech companies to censor legitimate content, thus stifling public debate on important issues.
Introducing criminal liability for tech bosses will increase pressure on the Government to accept recommendations from the Joint Parliamentary Committee which scrutinised the Bill to strengthen the exemption for news publishers.
The move is a huge shift in policy by the Government, which had up until now defied calls to make bosses criminally liable for their sites. One Whitehall insider said: ‘It had been the sword of Damocles hanging over them. But now it will come into force.’
Last month the Commons’ Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee said the draft legislation was a ‘missed opportunity’ to properly address a variety of online issues also including abuse faced by journalists.
The Bill is neither ‘clear nor robust’ enough to tackle some forms of illegal content – and would also fail to prevent the sharing of the most ‘insidious’ images of child abuse and violence against women and girls, it is claimed.
Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, which represents the UK media, said the draft Bill is ‘insufficient to protect freedom of expression’ and had to take account of the ‘fast nature of today’s news process’.
The group is concerned that the bill creates a duty of care for major US tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter that could prompt them to bring in new algorithms for removing harmful content from their platforms.
This would mean the companies could accidentally remove trusted journalistic content alongside posts that really are harmful unless an exemption for reputable news providers is included in the Bill.
Advertisement
