Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Labour would add "legal but harmful" BACK into the online bill

80 replies

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 10:43

Of course they would. FFS

order-order.com/2022/12/04/phillipson-labour-would-restore-legal-but-harmful-clause-for-online-content/

OP posts:
ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 17:11

Yet again ignoring the core concern of any government being able to decide any topic is off limits by declaring it "legal but harmful", I see.

OP posts:
MargaritaPie · 04/12/2022 17:14

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 17:11

Yet again ignoring the core concern of any government being able to decide any topic is off limits by declaring it "legal but harmful", I see.

I don't agree with any proposal to censor/ban "legal but harmful" topics.

There's a lot of things that sound good on paper but in practice are just completely unpractical to actually enforce and there's also the issue of having free speech taken away.

Happylittlechicken · 04/12/2022 17:23

im a bit conflicted on this bill. Although I do agree children’s access to harmful media needs to be restricted, I do think that restricting speech is also harmful. Who decides what is hate speech? Who decides what is acceptable to be said or published? I suppose one way it could be done in future is to have biometric access to porn or other adult sites, where a fingerprint could be used as access to them, with each device having different internet profiles for each user It would then be up to parents or guardians to ensure that the right profiles were set up for their family members, and if children were exposed on those devices, that would be on the parents.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 04/12/2022 17:29

This is all nonsense though, really. If something is so ‘ harmful’ that it can be demonstrated certainly to cause measurable harm, then draft a bill to make that specific thing illegal ; then debate it, preferably after submitting it to public scrutiny by including it in your manifesto ( wry smile).

Signalbox · 04/12/2022 17:43

Do you honestly think people with gender-critical views living in the UK are "being silenced"?

Yes. They are demonstrably being silenced, sacked, bullied,

JK Rowling has just short of 14M followers and every opinion she has is published by the daily mail for one example.

I don't think that JK Rowling has been silenced. But the way she has been treated will make a lot of other people without her wealth think twice about speaking out. She has received an awful lot of abuse and this sends a message out to all women everywhere that if they speak out on the sex and gender issue they will also possibly receive abuse or complaints to their employers. This obviously has the effect of silencing people. I know I don't always say what I actually think on the matter because I don't want to deal with the potential consequences having seen what other women have had to go through.

When Kathleen Stock left her role in the college, she spent over a month on TV/newspapers/radio etc daily as a platform for her views as another example.

I don't think Kathleen Stock has been silenced and she has stated that she won't be silenced. But she also says she has had a lot of "in private" support from many women who say they dare not speak up because they do not want to risk the consequences. This pattern repeats in every one of these high profile cases. A person publicly speaks out and is then demonised by trans activists. They then state that they are in receipt of hundreds of supportive communications from people who dare not speak out because they cannot risk losing their job or alienating friends and family or receiving abuse.

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 17:58

The reason why this clause is of particular interest on this board is because those who say:

  • sex matters and is immutable
  • transitioning children will more than likely mean doing harm to gay and lesbian children
  • erasing the reality of sex, permits and encourages sex offenders into women's spaces

Are attacked and silenced. Yet in the workplace, special networks that espouse ideas such as:

  • we have a gender identity and society should prioritise gender, and gender identity, and ignore sex
  • children know who they are and should be encouraged into their "true selves" (while ignoring the fact we know children change their minds, and that we don't let them smoke, drink, drive, or get tattoos because they're actual children m)
  • gender neutral spaces are great! ie mixed sex. Everyone should agree or they're a bigot

Are lauded and permitted to spread their own particular, divisive Word as though it were Gospel.

BUT while this is mostly playing out in these areas, it would obviously be possible - if not completely expected - for it to spread to other areas of life. "Legal but harmful" could apply to absolutely anything. So absolutely anyone could be on the wrong end of this if it becomes law.

I do not think it's an exaggeration to say that it would mean MPs couldn't tweet their own words in Hansard. That is how much of an overreach it is.

So if it's illegal or so bad it should be, make it illegal, and put it through Parliament.

OP posts:
Thelnebriati · 05/12/2022 01:01

Do you honestly think people with gender-critical views living in the UK are "being silenced"?

Female prisoners lose privileges & can be punished if they complain.
archive.ph/tUJZb

Women in hospital told there was no man on the ward so they could not have been raped.
www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-says-patient-could-not-26506744

Circumferences · 05/12/2022 11:49

Do you honestly think people with gender-critical views living in the UK are "being silenced"?

Um seriously how could you not notice that KJK and Glinner have been banned from Facebook and Twitter.
I myself got banned from Twitter! I'm like, the most normal reasonable person I simply said a woman can't have a penis.
I lost my Twitter platform entirely, which I used mostly for my fashion/Up-cycle/seamstress work.

Dick off with "no one is being silenced" .

Circumferences · 05/12/2022 11:55

Do you honestly think people with gender-critical views living in the UK are "being silenced"?

Mumsnet itself has had an uphill battle trying to allow the sex/gender debate.

The numbers of women on here who got banned are unsurmountable. For saying a woman can't have a penis or words similar to that. Not even "die in a grease fire" just basic facts. Still banned from talking. Here.
Maybe you haven't been around long enough but
The attacks from TRA attempting to shut women up and stop us speaking that Mumsnet have sustained for simply allowing this debate, are more than any other platform could be bothered with.

Thanks so much Justine 😘

pinchpoint · 05/12/2022 12:23

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 10:43

This

Grammarnut · 05/12/2022 12:32

WomaninBoots · 04/12/2022 14:38

She says "Russian and Incels" but in practice she means "women saying women don't have penises"...

Women don't have penises. Who could object to saying so?

RedToothBrush · 05/12/2022 13:23

What happens when you get cancelled?

You are prohibited from speaking to a certain audience. So you are silenced from speaking to young people at university for example. A place where young people are supposed to be being exposed to a vary of ideas so they can make decisions and form opinions themselves. Instead a situation where the range of ideas from which are allowed to create debate and form opinions from are tightly controlled by another group or body.

And whilst it's true that cancelled speakers 'aren't being silenced' because they can speak in other places, there's a point that remains.

These other places have different demographics and target markets. And these speakers are being excluded from specific markets because 'someone' disagrees and doesn't like the opinion. That's not the people who booked to see that person and wanted to hear what they said. Nor people who are opened minded and still in the process of forming opinions. And these speakers are being ousted from education and having their employee opportunities limited because of the desire to censor.

What we have to discuss is the power of the censor, who the censor is, what their agenda is, the degree to which they are trying to control the opinions of others and whether this power is transparent, accountability and how concentrated and representative it is.

We know the features of this are profoundly unliberal nor remotely democratic in practice in most cases.

Thats where the problem lies.

And yes it does mean that speakers are being silenced to force the creation of echochambers which prevent proper discussion and examination of issues in their full extent.

If your argument holds weight, you should be able to make the point and for others to challenge it. Attempts to stop this process create voids of disinformation and resentment to build up amongst some. And backlashes aren't helpful to anyone in society because they manifest in extremism from a different position.

Most would be happy just to be able to make their point. Points which may be complex, sensitive and difficult but also important because they address issues.

If you let problems fester, you foster the backlash because you enable the problems to persist and anger to build because you've neglected your position and this is a dereliction of duty. And you also foster unchecked power of censorship and behaviour which leads to abuses in its own right.

Once again it comes down to those with power failing to understand responsible governance. You understand the power of censorship and how it needs to be regulated and checked and you understand hostile forces which harm.

Women recognising both are stuck in the middle attacked by both and the problems they are recognising are being allowed to continue unchecked.

This isnt about women having power and therefore are privileged 'because they can speak elsewhere'. This is about that invisible power unspoken power of censorship which is limiting when and where women can speak which still is a power greater than the power these women have, regardless of the reach they might still maintain. Is this power being held to account or is it uncontrolled, faceless and subversive in its extent?

This matters.

Women are being silenced because they are not free to speak to all possible audiences and to people who want to listen (Inc fully sold out venues). Because there's a group who are using harassment, intimidation and coercive techniques to force this cancellation.

pinchpoint · 05/12/2022 13:26

I feel caught on the horns of a dilemma - on the one hand, beefing up online child protection seems overdue; on the other, all censorship tools are eagerly turned against women saying sensible things.

Can anyone recommend some good woman-centred analysis of the OHB? I started reading about it this summer, and reading the bill itself, but don't feel at all up-to-speed.

RedToothBrush · 05/12/2022 13:27

Also the nonsense of this bill boggles my mind in its lack of understanding of online culture, and lack of fixed narrative understandable definitions.

The terrorism acts under Blair were later much maligned for being too broad and ultimately being used against the public in draconian ways which were never intended.

The same will happen with such an ill thought out and worded Bill.

Its every bit as bad as the awful open ended Henry VIII powers in the Brexit Bill.

Unworkable, contradictory, unaccountable and untransparent. Which places concentrated power in government and institutions in a way which acts against the public interest.

RedToothBrush · 05/12/2022 13:49

pinchpoint · 05/12/2022 13:26

I feel caught on the horns of a dilemma - on the one hand, beefing up online child protection seems overdue; on the other, all censorship tools are eagerly turned against women saying sensible things.

Can anyone recommend some good woman-centred analysis of the OHB? I started reading about it this summer, and reading the bill itself, but don't feel at all up-to-speed.

Ultimately the wording of the bill is too broad. It needs to be very specific in what's not OK, and mindful of allowing whistle lowing and public concerns to be voiced.

It also needs to understand the implications of criminalisation and who this affects and whether its in the public interest.

Its well summed up in the phrase: 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' - who makes that decision?

Sonia Sodha was on politics live last week, talking about this. She suggested that rather than it being about individuals it's should be more about social media giants and algorithms - and how these direct and heighten echo Chambers and thats where the criminality of 'lawful harms' should be directed.

The debate was interesting in that it pointed out that this legislation runs the risk of needing vast censorship monitoring - which only the social media giants could manage. Thus driving smaller social media outfits out of business (hello mn) and its the algorithms which are driving a lot of this to begin with.

You have to ask a question here. The case that this has sprung from has been the suicide of a teenage girl. She didn't wake up one morning and decide to kill herself. It was a process of almost channelling her through a maze of gates to sources that amplified the same message. You don't start in that place - you go through a journey through online referrals to get to that. That for me is what you need to consider more. How do you counter that process and set up barriers, not how do you censor content outright (cos you'll never achieve that).

And this actually also sits next to the big question of why teens are searching online in the first place? There's an absence of counter voices and services both online and in the real world to catch them before they get to that point.

Why are we getting massive waves of online harms at a time where mental health provision and access to support in the real world is near impossible. Especially within a short time frame. The two are not unconnected.

The online harms bill is a cheap way to look like you are solving a problem, when the problem really is that people needing professional support rather than quackery and exploitation and online cultish echochambers, simply can't get it promptly.

There needs to be easy access alternatives available so teens aren't driven to seek out something else.

If it were a physical illness and the solution was a simple drug through the NHS we'd understand why restricting access to the drug (evidence based solution) was the problem. Because its less tangible and understood we say 'ban people talking about harming themselves'.

Its nonsense. People will still seek it out, because the key factors here are lack of access and growing desparation fuelled by people alienated and outside mainstream thinking (because of the self selecting and computer generated streaming of people into echochambers)

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:08

Grammarnut · 05/12/2022 12:32

Women don't have penises. Who could object to saying so?

Have you been put in an enchanted sleep for 6 years and only just woken up? Do you need a cup of tea?

Grammarnut · 05/12/2022 15:28

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:08

Have you been put in an enchanted sleep for 6 years and only just woken up? Do you need a cup of tea?

No indeed. How's your sarcasm meter?

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:29

Grammarnut · 05/12/2022 15:28

No indeed. How's your sarcasm meter?

Really crap unfortunately. I have ASD. 😂

AdamRyan · 05/12/2022 15:30

ResisterRex · 04/12/2022 14:43

I'm not against the Bill. It contains important protections for children. But "legal but harmful" is plainly a vehicle for authoritarian measures.

I think there does need to be a "legal but harmful" context to deal with extreme porn, glorification of eating disorders and suicide, etc etc
Surprised to see so many people are hostile to it

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:30

I can dole it out but can't read it. 🙃 Sorry!!!

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:36

AdamRyan · 05/12/2022 15:30

I think there does need to be a "legal but harmful" context to deal with extreme porn, glorification of eating disorders and suicide, etc etc
Surprised to see so many people are hostile to it

Can you not see how it would be misused?

There are other ways to tackle the things you list without needing a vague, potentially catch all, clause that could be wielded to shut anyone up about anything.

AdamRyan · 05/12/2022 15:36

And I think you could define harmful content in a way that would protect freedom of speech
Similar to how "incitement to racial hatred" is illegal - people still discuss a wide range of issues relating to racism on line

I'd love to see the current law around pornography being enforced much more strongly but clearly that does not work so Internet specific law is needed
I also think something needs to be done to stop death and rape threats against women online.

AdamRyan · 05/12/2022 15:39

WomaninBoots · 05/12/2022 15:36

Can you not see how it would be misused?

There are other ways to tackle the things you list without needing a vague, potentially catch all, clause that could be wielded to shut anyone up about anything.

I think the problem is there is no motivation to fix those things. I personally don't think the clause was dropped through "freedom of speech" - I think it was dropped because of pressure from online content hosters who don't want to police it, and the porn industry who are rich and powerful.

The proposed alternative for platforms to police themselves is laughable because they are already meant to do that and they don't.

RedToothBrush · 05/12/2022 16:09

AdamRyan · 05/12/2022 15:30

I think there does need to be a "legal but harmful" context to deal with extreme porn, glorification of eating disorders and suicide, etc etc
Surprised to see so many people are hostile to it

I'm not opposed to the idea of stopping the promotion of extreme porn, eating disorders and suicide.

Where I disagree is precisely with this lack of narrow and clear areas of harm.

The law needs to explicitly state 'eating disorders' and 'suicide' not have a vague fuzzy idea which in future can be applied to things not intended by the well meaning law writers.

It needs to be nailed down in legal definitions. (for example and this is a vague first draft off the top of my head to make a point rather than what I think it should be. It needs much more refinements)

eg 'an eating disorder is a condition where eating has become dangerous to the person concerned and may result in medical complications either physical in mental in nature requiring the assistance of health care practitioners' and 'promotion which a) amounts to amplifying concerns through algorithms which creates conditions likely to encourage disordered eating or b) an individual giving clear and directed means to increase the disordered eating AND there is a clear intent to further increase the disordered eating'

The suicide wording certainly wouldn't need to be a million miles away from the samartians guidelines - the point being it would be a move away from guidelines for the media and would apply to social media and be legally binding. (That would firmly beg questions of Mermaids btw)

Making it too broad makes it difficult to interpret and manage and has implications for free speech.

ResisterRex · 05/12/2022 16:15

Illegal images of children have been categorised, therefore extreme porn could be too. It would need to be categorised and made illegal via our democratic processes.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread