header-logo header-logo

Online safety shake-up

10 February 2022
Issue: 7966 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber
printer mail-detail
Social media companies will be expected to take proactive action to prevent online abuse happening, rather than simply react once abuse has occurred, under proposed legislation

The government announced this week it has accepted Law Commission recommendations to strengthen online safety and stamp out illegal content through an Online Safety Bill. It will create a list of criminal content for tech firms to remove as a priority, including drug and weapons dealings online, people smuggling, revenge porn, fraud, promoting suicide and inciting or controlling prostitution. Ofcom will be given powers to issue fines of up to 10% of annual worldwide turnover to non-compliant sites or block accessibility in the UK.

New criminal offences will be added to the Bill to tackle domestic violence and rape and death threats. These are: ‘genuinely threatening’ communications, such as online threats to rape or kill, punishable by up to five years in prison; harm-based communications, intended to cause serious distress, punishable with up to two years in prison; and knowingly sending false information with the intention of causing non-trivial harm, such as hoax bomb threats, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison.

Law Commissioner Professor Penney Lewis said the proposals would ‘create a more nuanced set of criminal offences’.

According to Nick Grant, Senior Associate at Payne Hicks Beach, the Bill could also lead to a rise in civil claims brought by victims of online abuse.

Grant said: ‘Importantly, the Joint Committee has recommended that the government create further legislation to allow users to sue providers for failure to meet their obligations under the proposed new act. 

‘At the moment, if social media platforms are unwilling to co-operate, it can be expensive and time consuming to remove unlawful content from their platforms and many do not have the resources or resilience to battle with social media giants. In particular, we can see that the revolutionary proposal that social media platforms must proactively prevent the posting of certain types of harmful content (such as revenge porn) rather than to respond reactively to complaints will likely have a substantial impact on the landscape of civil claims against social media platforms more generally.’

Issue: 7966 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll