Michelle Donelan is Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and is MP for Chippenham.
As many readers will have seen, one of my main priorities since becoming Secretary of State for DCMS has been to rebalance the Online Safety Bill, and address the concerns that many have raised around protecting free speech, including some very eloquently here on ConservativeHome.
Since the ‘what’ element of my announcement has been well reported and circulated in the press, I wanted to use this as an opportunity to address the ‘why’ behind my amendments to the Bill – particularly concerning my decision to completely remove all clauses related to ‘legal but harmful’ content for adults.
Those familiar with the last Bill I championed, the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Bill, will know that transparency, accountability and choice sit at the heart of what I think it means to be a Conservative. The left, especially the hard-left, increasingly despise the idea of individuals having choice over their own lives – perhaps in part because when they are free to choose, they don’t choose Labour.
But despite our desire for more choice in our lives, we have found ourselves on an increasingly slippery slope when it comes to free speech and exercising our freedom to choose. Too often small, very vocal, woke-lefty groups have pushed their agenda, and are gradually eroding free speech.
But this Government believes we can use that same cumulative effect to defend and restore it – hence why I felt that the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Bill was and is so important. However, that begins by acknowledging that, as time has gone on, Silicon Valley has gradually absorbed more and more control over what you see and engage with online, shunning calls for greater transparency and stripping away choice for users.
This is why I believe that these values of transparency, accountability and choice have never been more important to defend as our lives move increasingly online. If we fail to take a stand now and ensure that our way of life in reality is reflected in our online lives, then who knows where we will be in a few years time.
Frankly, in my view, the social media giants have no right to tell adults what legal content they can or cannot see, and neither does the Government. Just as Margaret Thatcher said, “when people are free to choose, they choose to be free” and, even as someone on the receiving end of some of the most grotesque aspects of legal free speech, my respect for the importance of free speech has only grown stronger over the years. In a world where the dividing lines between the free and the oppressed have never been so clear, now more than ever is not the time to abandon our democratic, Western values of diversity of opinion and freedom of choice.
Clearly, we need protections for children and proper mechanisms to allow adults to choose what they want to see and say, but I could not in good conscience allow a Bill to continue that would have fundamentally changed the nature of the way we interact with one another for the worse. Removing ‘legal but harmful’ was, in my view, the only option if we were to successfully rebalance and refocus this Bill on its intended goal: protecting children.
After all, our conservative principles often require us to distinguish between adults and children, especially on the grounds of child safety. As a Government, we make no apology for our steadfast defence of the family and of a child’s right to a childhood. Just this week, DCMS Ministers have been working with Conservative colleagues to give the child protection measures in the Bill extra teeth – and where social media bosses deliberately put children in harm’s way and ignore the regulator as well as the law, they will now be criminally liable for their actions. No longer will faceless executives be able to pass the buck and hide behind corporate loopholes.
For adults, my new ‘triple shield’ mechanism delivers choice. Where content is illegal, clearly it should be removed. If a platform says in its terms and conditions that it does not allow certain content, they must keep that promise and remove it.
Likewise, where their terms and conditions permit certain content, social media companies will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove this content – so ensuring that free speech is protected.
And finally, rather than the Government or Silicon Valley executives deciding on what remaining types of legal content adults can see, the power should rest with individuals, who frankly are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Together, these measures prevent the overzealous removal of legitimate content: if it is legal and the platform says in their terms that they allow it, then they can no longer arbitrarily remove it.
The entire Western world is looking to us as the first country to legislate to protect children and empower adults online against social media giants. If we are to set a blueprint for the rest of the world to follow, then let us set one that softly conveys British values of choice, freedom and tolerance of opposing views. I firmly believe that with the common sense changes I have introduced to the Bill, we are taking a huge stride forward for the sake of our children and generations to come.
We must never compromise on the values that make us who we are as a nation. Britain does best for the world when it steadfastly and confidently promotes and projects its values and strongly leads, for others to follow. As Parliament considers this revamped Bill, I hope that members across the House will agree that this is a moment to show the world who we are: a free nation in which children are protected no matter what.
Michelle Donelan is Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and is MP for Chippenham.
As many readers will have seen, one of my main priorities since becoming Secretary of State for DCMS has been to rebalance the Online Safety Bill, and address the concerns that many have raised around protecting free speech, including some very eloquently here on ConservativeHome.
Since the ‘what’ element of my announcement has been well reported and circulated in the press, I wanted to use this as an opportunity to address the ‘why’ behind my amendments to the Bill – particularly concerning my decision to completely remove all clauses related to ‘legal but harmful’ content for adults.
Those familiar with the last Bill I championed, the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Bill, will know that transparency, accountability and choice sit at the heart of what I think it means to be a Conservative. The left, especially the hard-left, increasingly despise the idea of individuals having choice over their own lives – perhaps in part because when they are free to choose, they don’t choose Labour.
But despite our desire for more choice in our lives, we have found ourselves on an increasingly slippery slope when it comes to free speech and exercising our freedom to choose. Too often small, very vocal, woke-lefty groups have pushed their agenda, and are gradually eroding free speech.
But this Government believes we can use that same cumulative effect to defend and restore it – hence why I felt that the Freedom of Speech (Higher Education) Bill was and is so important. However, that begins by acknowledging that, as time has gone on, Silicon Valley has gradually absorbed more and more control over what you see and engage with online, shunning calls for greater transparency and stripping away choice for users.
This is why I believe that these values of transparency, accountability and choice have never been more important to defend as our lives move increasingly online. If we fail to take a stand now and ensure that our way of life in reality is reflected in our online lives, then who knows where we will be in a few years time.
Frankly, in my view, the social media giants have no right to tell adults what legal content they can or cannot see, and neither does the Government. Just as Margaret Thatcher said, “when people are free to choose, they choose to be free” and, even as someone on the receiving end of some of the most grotesque aspects of legal free speech, my respect for the importance of free speech has only grown stronger over the years. In a world where the dividing lines between the free and the oppressed have never been so clear, now more than ever is not the time to abandon our democratic, Western values of diversity of opinion and freedom of choice.
Clearly, we need protections for children and proper mechanisms to allow adults to choose what they want to see and say, but I could not in good conscience allow a Bill to continue that would have fundamentally changed the nature of the way we interact with one another for the worse. Removing ‘legal but harmful’ was, in my view, the only option if we were to successfully rebalance and refocus this Bill on its intended goal: protecting children.
After all, our conservative principles often require us to distinguish between adults and children, especially on the grounds of child safety. As a Government, we make no apology for our steadfast defence of the family and of a child’s right to a childhood. Just this week, DCMS Ministers have been working with Conservative colleagues to give the child protection measures in the Bill extra teeth – and where social media bosses deliberately put children in harm’s way and ignore the regulator as well as the law, they will now be criminally liable for their actions. No longer will faceless executives be able to pass the buck and hide behind corporate loopholes.
For adults, my new ‘triple shield’ mechanism delivers choice. Where content is illegal, clearly it should be removed. If a platform says in its terms and conditions that it does not allow certain content, they must keep that promise and remove it.
Likewise, where their terms and conditions permit certain content, social media companies will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove this content – so ensuring that free speech is protected.
And finally, rather than the Government or Silicon Valley executives deciding on what remaining types of legal content adults can see, the power should rest with individuals, who frankly are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves. Together, these measures prevent the overzealous removal of legitimate content: if it is legal and the platform says in their terms that they allow it, then they can no longer arbitrarily remove it.
The entire Western world is looking to us as the first country to legislate to protect children and empower adults online against social media giants. If we are to set a blueprint for the rest of the world to follow, then let us set one that softly conveys British values of choice, freedom and tolerance of opposing views. I firmly believe that with the common sense changes I have introduced to the Bill, we are taking a huge stride forward for the sake of our children and generations to come.
We must never compromise on the values that make us who we are as a nation. Britain does best for the world when it steadfastly and confidently promotes and projects its values and strongly leads, for others to follow. As Parliament considers this revamped Bill, I hope that members across the House will agree that this is a moment to show the world who we are: a free nation in which children are protected no matter what.