Abstract
Internet service providers believe governments should champion free speech, says
Centuries old, the debate surrounding freedom of speech, privacy and security is constantly revisited to take account of new developments and modes of communications. Most recently, the exceptional growth of the internet has prompted public, private and civil actors to reassess how these three elements should best be balanced online. For the UK government, this debate takes place in two key spheres. While the Foreign Office embarks on a digital diplomacy drive, investing considerable political capital into international cyber security conferences and support for activists abroad, other government departments continue to grapple with a range of issues, including child protection, law enforcement and online harassment versus freedom of expression. Unfortunately, some of the domestic policy initiatives not only risk limiting online freedoms at home but also potentially undermine the UK’s credibility abroad.
To a certain degree, the UK is finding its way and seems to adopt a sensible approach towards the regulation of freedom of speech online. Frequent calls for the passing of new special online harassment (or ‘trolling’) laws have been largely resisted by a government that believes ‘that an individual should be charged and prosecuted for the offence they commit, irrespective of whether it happens in the street or in cyberspace’. In some areas, it has become clear that the existing rules need to be updated so that they can apply more adequately to the online world. Balancing security (or more often reputation) and freedom of expression has been a key element of policy considerations, including the reform of libel laws or the soon-to-be-published guidelines on the prosecution of cases involving social media. While the UK is by no means perfect, this ‘don’t fix it if it ain’t broke’ approach that extends existing rules to the online world, rather than re-regulating, seems to be a sound decision and should set an example across the globe.
However, when it comes to law enforcement and online crime, the government has a different approach. The Draft Communications Data Bill, currently being debated in Parliament, will enable law enforcement to have widespread access to highly personal and revealing data – with lower levels of oversight. When it comes to child protection, proposals for online filtering of adult content risks leaving the UK in a situation in which certain types of online content are blocked by default.
It can be argued that the proposed Communications Data Bill is entirely justifiable in a democratic country with a strong parliament and effective press that ensure accountability. It can also be argued that the default block on undesirable content can be easily switched off and should therefore not be regarded as censorship. But when it comes to countries with less accountable and established rules and institutions implementing similar measures, this is where problems really arise. After emphasising the importance of improving, developing and cooperating on international cyber security initiatives during his speech at the Budapest Conference on Cyber Space, Foreign Secretary William Hague turned to the issue of online freedom. He argued that ‘democratic governments must resist the calls to censor a wide range of content just because they or others find it offensive or objectionable. If we go down that path, we begin to erode the hard won rights of freedom of expression. We will always argue that it is necessary to err on the side of freedom.’
The Foreign Secretary admitted that ‘no country has a perfect record’, but current government initiatives risk undermining the promise to err on the side of freedom. For this reason it is crucial that industry, NGOs and campaigners help steer the debate in the right direction to ensure the UK makes the appropriate decision at home. This is not only because a sensible approach to internet regulation will be fundamental for maintaining a free and innovative online environment in the UK, but also because these choices will ultimately affect the policy choices made in countries where people cannot rely on accountable governments, where data retention regimes are misused and where filters cannot be turned off.