The landmark bill, which has been seen by some Tory MPs as a vehicle for censorship, has been brought forward to the autumn after the government ran out of parliamentary time to bring it forward. Responding to the delay, Badenoch tweeted that the bill would be reviewed if she became prime minister, saying: “We shouldn’t be legislating for hurt feelings.” That would be the right move. The bill is unable to become law. If I am elected Prime Minister, I will ensure that the bill does not go too far. We should not legislate for hurt feelings. https://t.co/zN0MLhZ0LP – Kemi Badenoch (@emKemiBadenoch) July 13, 2022 Culture Minister Nadine Dorries responded on Twitter saying the bill would require tech platforms to deal with content that encourages others to kill themselves and asked if that could be defined as “hurt feelings”. Encouraging others to kill themselves is what falls under this definition. It’s a huge problem, especially with young people. Do you really define that as “hurt feelings?” — Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) July 13, 2022 Technology minister Damian Collins, who chaired the cross-party committee that considered the bill, said Badenoch was “completely wrong” and that it was setting standards for internet security. “Why do you want to stop this,” Collins tweeted. The minister also tweeted on Thursday that Penny Mordaunt, front-runner in the Tory leadership contest, had confirmed to him that she would press ahead 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 significantly changed or overturned by a new prime minister and culture minister. This is completely wrong @KemiBadenoch – tell me where in this bill is there any provision that requires the legal word to be removed. Instead, for the first time we can set internet security standards based on our laws. Why would you want to stop it? https://t.co/ECpY8poKDR — Damian Collins (@DamianCollins) July 13, 2022 Shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell defended the bill, describing Badenoch’s criticisms as “ill-informed” and telling her to “educate yourself”. Jesus. We must not let you protect our children. You obviously have no idea how the account will work or why it is needed. You’ve clearly completely sniffed out some nasty update from an ill-informed colleague. Educate yourself before you preach if you want to be Prime Minister. https://t.co/WikMLhtleN — Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell) July 13, 2022 Much of the criticism of the bill has focused on provisions dealing with “priority content that is harmful to adults,” which is content that is harmful but falls below the threshold of criminality. Companies such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube will have to consider how they deal with such content under their terms and conditions, which will be enforced by the communications regulator, Ofcom. Last week, Dorries revealed an initial list of such content, which includes online abuse and harassment, suicide and the promotion of eating disorders. Tech companies should signal to users whether they will ban such content, demote it in the news or allow it freely on their platforms. If they choose to allow legal but harmful content, they should 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 latest offense was highlighted by Tory think tank director Robert Colville, who wrote the Tories’ 2019 manifesto, as an example of a part of the bill “legislating for hurt feelings”. Under the clause, a person commits an offense if they send a message that is intended to cause “psychological harm, equivalent to at least serious distress”. The new offences, however, replace much wider offenses that already exist in UK law and are removed by the Bill. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 contain language that effectively makes it illegal to be rude online. Under the first, an offender can be jailed for up to two years for sending a message that is “obscene or grossly offensive” or “false” if the intention is to “cause distress or anxiety”. Under the latter, an offender can be jailed for six months for sending a message “of an indecent, obscene or threatening nature” or for sending a false message “with intent to cause annoyance, annoyance or unnecessary anxiety”. The Malicious Communications Act was behind the arrest of a man last year on suspicion of racially abusing England footballers after the Euro 2020 final and has been used to charge people with offenses ranging from online stalking to “revenge porn”. The Communications Act was used to charge and convict Paul Chambers, a trainee accountant who joked about blowing up Nottingham Airport on Twitter.
