Truthfulness must prevail in social media regulation debate

Jan 20, 2021 by

by Carys Moseley, Christian Concern:

How should disputes about free speech on social media be handled? Who decides what is outside the bounds not only of decency but of the law? These questions are not new. They have become particularly important over the last five years with the growth of so-called Big Tech companies. Fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, free speech and freedom of assembly are at stake here.

Here in the UK, a lot of the concerns about free speech and censorship have been around the use of Twitter and Facebook. People have lost their jobs due to things they said on these platforms. Public debate has been deeply affected by what happens on social media and how the press, politicians and various public authorities respond. The question of how to deal with harmful online content has become central, with the government proposing to regulate social media to address this. Specifically, the government has given OFCOM the role of regulation.

Is Ofcom the answer?

In December, John Nicholson, an SNP MP on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee of the House of Commons, compared gender-critical views to racism. He was asking Melanie Dawes the CEO of Ofcom why the BBC gave airtime to critics of transgender ideology to balance news stories about transgenderism. Dawes agreed with him, and said Ofcom was taking advice from Stonewall about how to structure programmes appropriately.

Conservative MP Damian Green, a former Channel 4 presenter, challenged Dawes on her remarks, saying:

“You seem to agree with the proposition that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the current orthodox trans rights position is the equivalent of an old-fashioned racist.

“The most famous person who agrees with that is JK Rowling.

“I find it slightly odd that a broadcasting regulator has effectively said that JK Rowling and women who think like her are the equivalent of old-fashioned racists.

“You did seem to be suggesting that women like JK Rowling were just beyond the pale, they’re not allowed to enter the debate.

“I think that’s probably an inappropriate position for a senior regulator.”

The problem with Dawes’ approach is that people who tell the unvarnished truth about transgender policies would be marginalised and censored. Freedom ‘to not be offended’ would trump freedom of speech. Since then, the Ofcom code has been revised, based on a now-defunct EU directive. Criticism of ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘political or other beliefs’ is now considered ‘hate speech’ by Ofcom. Many in the press are very concerned.

Read here

Please right-click links to open in a new window.

Related Posts

Tags

Share This