GrahamSmith'sblogonlaw,IT,theinternetandonlinemedia
ThatissueoverlapswithaquestionthathasdoggedtheOnlineHarmsprojectfromtheoutset:whatdoesitmeanbysafetyandharmTheanswershapesthepotentialimpactofthelegislationonfreedomofexpression.Thebroaderandvaguerthenotionofharm,thegreaterthesubjectivityinvolvedincomplyingwiththedutyofcare,andthegreatertheconsequentdangersforonlineusers'legitimatespeech.
ThedraftBillrepresentsthegovernment'sthirdattemptatdefiningharm(ifweincludetheWhitePaper,whichsetnolimit).Thescopeofharmproposedinitssecondversion(theFullResponse)hasnowbeensignificantlywidened.
Moderationandfilteringduties
Section9(3)imposes:
(a)minimisethepresenceofpriorityillegalcontent;
(b)minimisethelengthoftimeforwhichpriorityillegalcontentispresent;
(c)minimisethedisseminationofpriorityillegalcontent;
SinceSection9(3)andtheotherdutiesmakenosensewithoutthevariouskindsofprioritycontentfirstbeingdesignated,regulationswouldpresumablyhavetobemadebeforethelegislationcancomeintoforce.ThebreadthoftheSecretaryofState'sdiscretionindesignatingprioritycontentisdiscussedbelow.
Ifsecondarylegislationisalayerofdetailappliedtothepreliminarydrawingafurtherlayer,yetmoredetailed,willconsistofcodesofpractice,guidanceandriskprofilesfordifferentkindsofservice,allissuedbyOfcom.
Thisregulatoryvesselwouldbepointedinthegovernment'sdesireddirectionbyastatementofstrategiconlinesafetyprioritiesissuedbytheSecretaryofState,towhichOfcomwouldberequiredtohaveregard.Thestatementcouldsetoutparticularoutcomes.TheSecretaryofStatewouldfirsthavetoconsultwithOfcom,thenlaythedraftbeforeParliamentsoastogiveeitherHousetheopportunitytovetoit.
Collateraldamagetolegitimatespeech
Againstthesecriteria,howdoesthedraftBillscoreonthecollateraldamageindex
ProofthresholdS.41definesillegalcontentascontentwheretheserviceproviderhasreasonablegroundstobelievethatuseordisseminationofthecontentamountstoarelevantcriminaloffence.Illegalcontentdoesnothavetobedefinitelyillegalinorderforthesection9(3)dutiestoapply.
ThescaleoftherequiredmoderationandfilteringisapparentfromtheImpactAssessment.
BythetimeofitsFullConsultationResponseinDecember2020thegovernmenthadcomeroundtotheideathattheproposeddutyofcareshouldrelateonlytodefinedkindsofharm,whethertheyarosefromillegalusercontentorusercontentthatwaslegalbutharmful[FullResponse2.24].
Version3.0ThedraftBillstatesasageneraldefinitionthat"harm"means"physicalorpsychologicalharm".ThisisanattenuatedversionofthegeneraldefinitionproposedintheFullResponse.However,thedraftBilldoesnotstipulatethat'harmful'shouldbeunderstoodinthesamelimitedway.Theresultofthatomission,combinedwithotherdefinitions,couldbetogivetheSecretaryofStateregulation-makingpowersforlegalbutharmfulcontentthatare,onthefaceofthem,notlimitedtophysicalorpsychologicalharm.
TheSecretaryofStatehasaparallelpowertodesignatepriorityillegalcontent(whichunderpinsthesection9(3)dutiesabove)bysecondarylegislation.Hecannotincludeoffencesrelatingto:
-Infringementofintellectualpropertyrights
-Safetyorqualityofgoods(asopposedtowhatkindofgoodstheyare)
-Performanceofaservicebyapersonnotqualifiedtoperformit
InconsideringwhethertodesignateanoffencetheSecretaryofStatedoeshavetotakeintoaccount,amongotherthings,thelevelofriskofharmbeingcausedtoindividualsintheUKbythepresenceofcontentthatamountstotheoffence,andtheseverityofthatharm.Harmheredoesmeanphysicalorpsychologicalharm.
ThefirstroundofsecondarylegislationdesignatingcategoriesofpriorityillegalandharmfulcontentwouldrequireaffirmativeresolutionsofeachHouseofParliament.SubsequentregulationswouldbesubjecttonegativeresolutionofeitherHouse.
Internalcontradictions
However,sincetheverydutiesimposedbythedraftBillcreateariskofcollateraldamagetolegitimatespeech,aconflictbetweendutiesisinevitable.Thepotentialforconflictincreaseswiththescopeofthedutiesandthebreadthandsubjectivityoftheirsubjectmatter.
ThegovernmenthasacknowledgedtheriskofcollateraldamageinthecontextofCategory1services,whichwouldbesubjecttodutiesinrelationtolawfulcontentharmfultoadultsinadditiontothedutiesapplicabletoordinaryproviders.
Noobligationtoconductafreedomofexpressionriskassessmentcouldremovetheriskofcollateraldamagebyover-removal.Thatsmacksoffaithintheexistenceofatechmagicwand.Moreover,itdoesnotreflecttheuncertaintyandsubjectivejudgementinherentinevaluatingusercontent,howevergreattheresourcesthrownatit.