#KillTheOnlineSafetyBill #KillThePublicOderBill as individual mothers and fathers like #KatieWinslet, are putting our Freedom of Speech and Right Of Protest which is a Human Right. Currently on shutdown..✊🏾 #SaveTheArts #HumanRights The Bill contains insufficient safeguards for freedom of expression

The Bill purports to counter the significant risks to freedom of expression that it causes by introducing a set of special provisions. We note that none of these protections provides for a meaningful counter-balance to the safety duties imposed by the Bill.

First, all services have a duty to ‘have regard to the importance’ of protecting users’ freedom of expression and privacy rights (Sections 19 and 29) when deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies. When contrasted with the more robust safety duties established in the Bill (and the heavy sanctions regime enforcing its compliance), this wording will be insufficient to offer meaningful protection and only seemingly creates the appearance of a balance being struck in the Bill. In fact, the Bill goes on to specify that if service providers adopt the ‘relevant recommended measures’ to comply with their safety duties (as recommended by Ofcom), they are also considered to have complied with their freedom of expression and privacy duties. This removes any incentive for a company to duly consider the impact of its safety measures on freedom of expression and privacy and will likely reduce this duty to a box-ticking exercise.

Second, the Bill exempts news publisher content, being content generated by a ‘recognised news publisher’ or content that reproduces or links to the full version of an article originally published by a recognised news publisher. To qualify as such a recognised news publisher under the Bill, a publisher is required to hold a broadcasting licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 and publish news-related material in connection with the activities authorised under the licence. Alternatively, a publisher is required to meet a number of criteria, such as having a business address in the UK and publishing news-related material (subject to editorial control and in accordance with a standards code) as its principal purpose (section 50). It is notable that foreign news publishers will likely not be able to avail themselves of that exemption.

As we noted in our review of the draft Bill, we are concerned about carve-outs for established media actors that come at the expense of citizen journalists who do not fulfil the exemption criteria, even though they may engage in vital journalistic activity. In other words, this leads to different standards in which the speech of some actors is more valued than others.

Twitter Link – https://twitter.com/Iam_Claude25/status/1657845032257298434?t=AxliE9JUej9DaqYz0VeXhg&s=19

Third, there is a set of additional duties on larger platforms (Category 1 services) to protect so-called ‘content of democratic importance’ (section 15) as well as ‘journalistic content’ (section 16) when making content-related decisions.
Source: Article 19 @article19org #Article

🏷 @libertyhq @XRebellionUK @xrdigitalrebel @fff_europe @fff_digital

Website ~ article19.org #BreakingNews @BBCBreaking @SkyNewsBreak

#GCBRandTCSL

#TheClaudesSENLaw
Stay updated with next post in regards to The Claudes SEN Law Campaign. In the next coming days. ✍🏾✊🏾📢 #TheClaudesSENLaw