Online Safety Bill and misogyny

[ResisterRex]

I thought others might like to see this from today's Times:

This is the slow road to state censorship.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e34a7456-cca6-11ec-bb1d-4e283d8ec187?shareToken=33acabc7498a91362b3eef13673f22c44_

In particular:

"In that Commons debate, Dorries mentioned misogyny as a problem the bill would help to address. But if, at a future date, misogyny is defined as being directed against gender, not sex, JK Rowling could find herself on the wrong side of this line. A move designed to protect women online could inadvertently lead to a further erasure of the female sex."

The Bill also raises the unanswered question of what's "legal but harmful". For instance - from this board - is:

1. Encouraging children on a medial path when they're most likely gay and will desist, legal but harmful? Or
2. Not affirming children and providing them with information on the effects of social transitioning etc, legal but harmful?

As the comment piece says:

"There is a clear risk of unintended consequences. As MPs contemplate this bill, they should remember the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm."

This article is by James Forsyth. He is political editor of The Spectator and has a Friday column in The Times. He has been writing about women's rights and gender identity for a long time when few others in the main media were.

It highlights the very considerable difficulties in legislating to control harm on the internet - things that are legal but harmful, such as might affect impressionable young people - and the possible unintended consequences of handing power to do so to the tech companies or a regulator such as Ofcom or how it might be used by a government in the future.

The point about how censorship by systems could catch JK Rowling or anyone critical of gender identity ideology is well made. We already have substantial evidence of attempts to censor expression of opinion about gender identity and to punish people for expressing it. Then there is the additional self censorship generated in anticipation of social censure and punishment.

For women, we are the most likely to be affected by harm but also to be caught by censorship or social punishment. And for us, the example of the failure to consider and define legislation properly and its potential consequences is something that haunts us every day. This Bill probably needs to be more fully discussed, analysed and defined before rushing ahead into legislation.

I think this is one to keep a close eye on, and maybe someone like Sex Matters would help with an emailing plan. Parts of the Bill must be right such as plans to tackle child sex abuse.

But some of it is just not right at all. "Legal but harmful" could mean anything. And tech companies should obey the laws of the land. The Equality Act applies and women shouldn't be booted off and be unprotected because they use "gender" in their policies. Twitter, I'm thinking of here in particular!

Inadvertently?!

Is he naiive or being facetious? Using this to silence and punish biological women for saying things like 'biology exists' and 'stop hurling our rights back to the fucking dark ages' and to forward TQ+ political dominance has been the primary intent from the bloody start!

Artichoke I read that as: if misogyny is put in now, then at a future date that could harm women if "gender" is swapped out for "sex". For example: talking about male sex offenders who happen upon their true selves around about the time they're arrested (I know, it never happens), could see the observer being booted off a platform for "misogyny" towards a male born person.

thanks, OP. I believe Mumsnet and Justine of Mumsnet have also been working on a campaign relating to this bill .

I think I do remember MNHQ saying they'd do something now. Here's another Times article from today in case of interest:

Ministers face Conservative rebellion over Online Safety Bill.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3f6d07d0-cd5b-11ec-bb1d-4e283d8ec187?shareToken=fd4478c6b985a2be97a593be6f1cb0b00_

"David Davis, the former cabinet minister and veteran free-speech campaigner, is among those who are unhappy with the bill. He said: “The whole idea of legal but harmful is a trap. If it is sufficiently harmful it should be illegal. This bill is going to be modified in the courts rather than the House. It’s impossible to say what it will do at the moment. The flavour of the law will be dictated by the first half dozen court cases and how they play out.”

Davis acknowledged that there was not likely to be a “major” rebellion against the whole bill, but even supportive MPs share concerns about the reluctance to spell out what “legal but harmful” means. Government sources suggest it will include racist abuse and promotion of suicide, but insist that spelling the list out now could worsen the risk of censorship as MPs would seek to add pet issues."

Imagine the pet issues added if they were in the hands of Blunt (though he's off), Lammy, Creasy, Noakes.

That article is by Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor. He wrote another one on 4 May, quoting a QC detailing other problems with it including the lack of clarity for the tech companies, the dangers of cautionary censorship of grey areas and how it would be incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention in terms of freedom of expression.
How one Act works with another is, as we know from recent experience of a different set of legislation, essential to define and work out and it does not appear that the government and Parliament have sufficiently gone into that or all the different angles and the traps that could arise.
No surprise that ministers anxious to be seen to do something come out with flyaway comments that it's going to be wonderful and protect the vulnerable - some hope - and come up with a glib answer about racism and suicide when asked to define what it would cover - dear me, how original. If that's the depth of thought, analysis and awareness, gawd help us.

I don't know if this link will work - prob not. I was able to read this article from the shared token to the original article on this thread.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/online-safety-bill-threatens-rights-to-free-speech-claims-top-lawyer-g2fd585zs

Correction: sorry; not the original article but the second article share token posted above.