Inside The Lords: free speech, bad eyesight and undemocratic betrayals...
Claire Fox reports from a week inside parliament with updates on campus censorship, the Online Safety Bill and government U-turns on EU law.
Inside The Lords this week starts with a positive - after a very long time, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill has gone through. We have had a huge amount of debate on this, and I among others have pushed for it to result in more freedom, not less. Though it's not perfect, and will not make any great changes in and of itself, I hope it will be a useful tool for free-speech-minded groups and individuals fighting back against cancel culture on campus.
That, I'm afraid, is all the good news I have. In stark contrast, so much of the Online Safety Bill sounds like harmless protective legislation. But dig a little deeper, and there are some very serious threats to freedom. What we say and read is going to be heavily policed - our internet experience really isn't going to be the same if this Bill has its way. I have made several speeches this week, detailed below.
Elsewhere, I completely screwed up my immigration speech - in that I didn't make it into the chamber to deliver it! Thanks to either my poor eyesight, pain pills for my back or confusing small print on the order paper (maybe all three) I missed my slot to speak. However, I will continue to make the point, where I can, that the constant demonisation or dismissal of those with concerns about small boats or illegal migration is neither helpful nor fair.
And finally, the row about the Retained EU Law Bill is frustrating, to say the least. Critics of the Bill and its original deadline shouted that the executive had given itself too much power to decide which of these thousands of laws and regulations to keep or bin - the irony being that none of the laws had democratic scrutiny in the first place. These critics, who claim they are speaking in defence of democracy, are none other than members of the unelected House of Lords. In response, rather than tweaking the Bill, the government seems to have caved. This is not only a betrayal of Brexit promises, it is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Watch out for another Substack next week with details on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill and what it means for campus censorship. And while we’re here - if you like our Substack, please share it with your friends. Every subscriber and supporter allows us to reach higher and do more in the fight for free speech. See you next week.
Here are my speeches on the Online Safety Bill in the Lords - you can find all my speeches on my YouTube channel.
‘Legal but harmful’ may have been formally removed from #OnlineSafetyBill, but it has been outsourced to Ofcom enforcement of Big-Tech companies' terms and conditions. And if they fail to enforce it - even removing legal content - they will be breaking the law.
Later on, in response to the minister's non-reply, I pushed again. To no avail...
I asked a short, related question - yes I have every sympathy with those worried about adults who are vulnerable, but organising a law around adult access to material as though ALL adults are vulnerable is very dangerous for #freespeech.
I also made a rather long speech in defence of proper user empowerment, rather than allowing Big Tech to filter out material under the weakest, most subjective headings of 'abuse, harm, and hate'. This would mean that there will be a default setting that adults will have to turn on to access lawful speech. FGS, Big Brother paternalism is alive and well in The Lords.
Another quick question on the war of the toggles! If asked to choose between censorship and feeling safe and free speech with the prospect of experiencing some discomfort or hateful material, I know which side I'm on.
Later on, I made an intervention in defence of online anonymity. There are so many reasons why people might be anonymous and not just for trolling - experimenting with your sexuality before coming out, using social-media platforms for political organising etc. The freedom to be anonymous is an important privacy right.
My longest speech yet. Trying to insist that free speech is not a secondary value, always to be trumped by safety. What is psychological harm? And how on earth can we defend democratic debate online if the virtual world is crawling with regulators?!
Another day, more Online Safety Bill discussion. I took on mis-and-disinformation. The terms are highly politicised, weaponised so often used to justify censorship or discredit our political opponents. The Bill steered clear of the issue, although it suggested a Ministry of Truth Advisory Body, I argued. Inevitably, the opposition benches are all keen to have more policing of misinformation, especially what is called 'harmful health fake news'. The irony being that so many official truths on Lockdown ended up being misinformation...
Another speech on media literacy: in some ways, I'd prefer education to regulation. But when people say ‘adults need lessons in media literacy’, it always ends up being paternalistic and infantilising, emphasising harms rather than arming people with resilience that comes via debate and being open to diverse views. I recommended Debating Matters Topic Guides and John Locke on toleration as a better option than a technical fix.