The Christian Institute urges PM not to curb free speech

The Christian Institute has urged Sir Keir Starmer not to respond to recent public disorder by imposing draconian restrictions on free speech.

While it said the Government must examine the root causes and prosecute the perpetrators of the “shocking scenes of violence”, it warned that ministers should not be drawn into a knee-jerk reaction.

The Prime Minister has previously said that the police and law enforcement do not need new powers to tackle such crime, and that he does not wish to pass new legislation “every time there is a challenge in front of us”, but he is reportedly under pressure to do so.

Current laws adequate

London Mayor Sadiq Khan told The Guardian: “I think very swiftly the government has realised there needs to be amendments to the Online Safety Act. I think what the government should do very quickly is check if it is fit for purpose. I think it’s not fit for purpose.”

And Labour activist Carol Vorderman, responding to reports that the Act was to be reviewed, said “Good. It was never strong enough”.

However, The Institute pointed out that the Online Safety Act is not yet being enforced by Ofcom.

It also noted that online threats, like offline threats, are already illegal and have been for years. Such laws were recently used to convict a woman who used Facebook to call for a mosque to be blown up.

‘Slippery and subjective language’

Institute Deputy Director Simon Calvert commented: “Those calling for additional regulation of what you and I say online clearly want to go much further and criminalise the content of our opinions.

“It seems likely the push will be to reintroduce limitations on content that is deemed ‘legal but harmful’ for adults. This was a Conservative policy wisely abandoned when Parliament was looking at the Bill but to which Labour, at the same, seemed rather attached.

“Penalising social media giants for letting adults see content that is perfectly legal yet deemed to be ‘harmful’ should send a chill down the spine. It’s simple: If you can legally say it in the street, you should be able to legally say it online.

“Like ‘disinformation’ or ‘extremism’, the term ‘harm’ is slippery and subjective language that could lead to damaging limitations on legitimate debate.”

Rowan Atkinson

Mr Calvert noted that a similar reaction following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015 almost resulted in the introduction of Extremism Disruption Orders, which were designed to curb ‘non-violent extremism’, but were dropped following criticism.

He remarked: “It was evident at that time, as it is now, that free speech was vital to countering dangerous ideas that tempt people towards violence. Starmer must surely know to avoid any form of totalitarian power where speech is limited, because it is in that context that anger abounds.

“As Rowan Atkinson sagely observes in the viral video of his speech on freedom of expression, ‘the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it’.

“There is already a raft of legislation that can be used to tackle incitement to violence and damage to property. That’s why we’ve seen days on end of arrests and court cases. Sir Keir should stick to his plan to ‘wean ourselves off’ passing more legislation every time there is a challenge in front of us.”