Thank you for writing to me about the Online Safety Bill. Whilst the bill does contain many positive elements - particularly in its provisions to protect children online and to crack down on illegal activity - I recognise that constituents have concerns about risks to freedom of speech.
The Bill as currently written includes expectations on social media platforms, forums and similar content hosts to tackle so-called 'legal but harmful' content. The government absolutely must clearly define exactly what "harmful" means in this context in order to avoid a potential chilling effect on free speech.
Measures that do not go as far as outright content removal such as “health warnings” before potentially harmful content is displayed could be an option. However, there also needs to be a two-way duty of care with a counterbalancing obligation not to block the legitimate exercise of free speech. We cannot allow a situation to develop where internet giants are encouraged to be risk averse and simply remove any content that is in any way controversial. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it harmful!
The legislation needs a list of examples of what “legal but harmful" means, even if it can never be exhaustive. There also need to be clear rights for people to challenge decisions to remove their online content.
The bill remains in its early stages, and I can assure you that I will be scrutinising it closely as it continues through its various stages.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
