Ministers have hit back at Kemi Badenoch’s criticism of the online safety bill after the Conservative leadership contender said the delayed proposals were in “no fit state” to become law.
The flagship bill, which has been seen by some Tory MPs as a vehicle for censorship, has been shunted to the autumn after the government ran out of parliamentary time to push it through.
Responding to the delay, Badenoch tweeted that the bill would be overhauled if she became prime minister, stating: “We should not be legislating for hurt feelings.”
This would be the right move. The bill is in no fit state to become law.
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 13, 2022
If I’m elected Prime Minister I will ensure the bill doesn’t overreach. We should not be legislating for hurt feelings. https://t.co/zN0MLhZ0LP
The culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, responded on Twitter by saying the bill would require tech platforms to deal with content encouraging others to take their own lives and asked if that could be defined as “hurt feelings”.
Encouraging others to take their own life is what comes under that definition. It’s a huge problem, especially with young people. You really define that as ‘hurt feelings?’
— Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) July 13, 2022
The tech minister, Damian Collins, who chaired the cross-party committee that scrutinised the bill, said Badenoch was “completely wrong” and that it set safety standards online. “Why would you want to stop that,” Collins tweeted.
The minister also tweeted on Thursday that Penny Mordaunt, a favourite in the Tory leadership contest, had confirmed to him that she would continue with the bill if she became leader.
The bill is due to return to parliament in the autumn but there is speculation that it could be changed significantly or dropped under a new prime minister and culture secretary.
This is completely wrong @KemiBadenoch - tell me where in this bill there is any provision that requires the removal of legal speech. Instead for the first time we can set safety standards online based on our laws. Why would you want to stop that. https://t.co/ECpY8poKDR
— Damian Collins (@DamianCollins) July 13, 2022
The shadow culture secretary, Lucy Powell, defended the bill, describing Badenoch’s criticisms as “ill-informed” and telling her to “educate yourself”.
Jesus. You shouldn’t be let loose on protecting our children. You obviously have no idea how the bill will work nor why it’s needed. You’ve clearly fully sniffed up some dodgy briefing from an ill-informed colleague. Educate yourself before you preach if you want to be PM. https://t.co/WikMLhtleN
— Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell) July 13, 2022
Much of the criticism of the bill has focused on provisions to deal with “priority content that is harmful to adults”, which is content that is harmful but falls below the threshold of criminality.
The likes of Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube will have to address how they deal with such content in their terms and conditions, which will be enforced by the communications regulator, Ofcom. Last week, Dorries disclosed an initial list of such content, which includes online abuse and harassment, suicide and the promotion of eating disorders.
Tech firms will have to flag to users whether they will ban such content, downplay it in news feeds or freely allow it on their platforms. If they choose to allow legal but harmful content, they will need to provide users with settings to help them choose whether they want to be exposed to it or not.
The bill contains three new offences, for communications that are “false”, “threatening” or “harmful”. The latter offence was highlighted by the conservative thinktank director Robert Colvile, who co-wrote the 2019 Tory manifesto, as an example of a part of the bill that “legislates for hurt feelings”. Under the clause, a person commits an offence if they send a message intended to cause “psychological harm, amounting to at least serious distress”.
The new offences, however, are replacements for much broader offences that already exist in UK law and are repealed by the bill. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 contain language that makes it effectively illegal to be rude on the internet.
Under the former, an offender can be sent to prison for up to two years for sending a message that is “indecent or grossly offensive”, or “false”, if the intent is to “cause distress or anxiety”. Under the latter, an offender can be sent to jail for six months for sending a message “of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”, or for sending a false message “for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.
The Malicious Communications Act was behind the arrest of a man last year on suspicion of racially abusing England footballers following the Euro 2020 final, and has been used to charge people for offences ranging from cyberstalking to “revenge porn”. The Communications Act was used to charge and convict Paul Chambers, a trainee accountant who joked about blowing up Doncaster Sheffield airport on Twitter.
• This article was amended on 14 July 2022. The airport referenced in the Paul Chambers case was Doncaster Sheffield (which at the time was called Robin Hood airport) not “Nottingham airport” as we had it.
