the Online Safety Bill - new law incoming. "Trolls will be jailed for psychological harm"

[Dystopiary]

Nothing to worry about, the secretary of state for digital, culture etc, clearly knows what she's doing.

Nadine Dorries, Britain’s Big Tech slayer

 

[PR1Berske]

Text here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

 

[quiet guy]

Nothing to worry about, the secretary of state for digital, culture etc, clearly knows what she's doing.

Nadine Dorries, Britain’s Big Tech slayer

View attachment 314742

The last of the big hitters...

 

[danny la rouge]

Nothing to worry about, the secretary of state for digital, culture etc, clearly knows what she's doing.

Nadine Dorries, Britain’s Big Tech slayer

View attachment 314742

She’s right. They should also ban calculus.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

prostitutescollective.net/briefing-online-safety-bill/


From the English Collective of Prostitutes -


This clause is a dangerous attempt to criminalise sex workers’ online advertising. Our full briefing is here



Hundreds of letters have been sent, reaching 311 MPs – thank you to those who forwarded the responses to us.



Many MPs responded saying that they are aware of our campaign and concerns. A few MPs have voiced their opposition to Clause 16 vowing to push for its removal.



But both the government and the opposition are backing the inclusion of Clause 16 and we need to counter this misinformation.



►The Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Alex Davies Jones MP, specifically welcomed Clause 16 saying that ‘Labour was pleased to see new additions to the most recent iteration, including criminal content relating to…inciting or controlling prostitution for gain’.



►The government spokesperson Chris Philip MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy) argued for Clause 16 to be retained as a priority offence as it targeted ‘often identifiable symptoms of modern slavery’, with sexual exploitation being ‘often the manifestation of modern slavery’[ii].



The claim that Clause 16 is needed to target modern slavery is very dangerous. Associating sex work with trafficking and using this to justify a crackdown on sex workers’ online adverts is how the US FOSTA/SESTA laws went through. Sex workers in the US reported that the loss of their online presence made them more susceptible to labour exploitation and trafficking. Law enforcement said that it is now more difficult to locate traffickers since advertising websites have been shut down.



We must also oppose claims by some MPs that Clause 16 poses no real danger to sex workers because it will only target those who are “controlling” others, that is coercing others and profiteering from their work. These claims have been made by Chris Philip MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy who is on the Online Safety Bill Commons General Committee.[iii]



Offences of “controlling” and “causing or inciting prostitution for gain” are used routinely in the criminal courts against sex workers working together where there is no force or coercion. The very definition of controlling DOES NOT require force and coercion to be proved (see R v Massey[iv]). What guarantee is there that “controlling” won’t be defined in the same way in the implementation of Clause 16? We have worked with hundreds of sex workers fighting these very offences. For example, a sex worker who helped others place adverts online (because she had better English skills than them) has been held under investigation for over a year for trafficking/modern slavery offences. She is one of many targeted in this way.



ACTION NEEDED



If your MP has replied to your initial letter and used any of the issues highlighted above as justification for the retention of Clause 16 of Schedule 7, we would suggest responding to them highlighting the following:



Preventing sex workers from advertising will increase violence. Research shows that internet platforms have allowed more sex workers to work inside where it is safer than on the streets, and also to work independently of managers or agencies who may be exploitative.[v]
It is not true that Clause 16 poses no danger to sex workers and will only be used against traffickers or those who are coercing others and profiteering from their work. Controlling prostitution for gain is interpreted very widely in the criminal courts. Some women in the ECP have been prosecuted under this offence just for helping a friend build a website or place an advert.
It is not true that Clause 16 is needed to fight trafficking and modern slavery. A similar justification was used for the US SESTA/FOSTA laws but evidence showed that these laws did not reduce trafficking or other violence, and increased harm towards sex workers.[vi] Law enforcement agencies said that it is now more difficult for them to locate traffickers.[vii]



We are still collating statements from sex workers about the impact on you if online advertising is banned. Please drop us a DM on Instagram or Twitter, or email us at ecp@prostitutescollective.net. All will be kept anonymous.

 

[editor]

What does world leading troll expert Jonathon Bishop think of all this?

 

[Shechemite]

Ah JB, reminds me of a happier, more innocent time

 

[8ball]

What does world leading troll expert Jonathon Bishop think of all this?

He seems to be very, very busy, holding at least eight positions for a wide range of bodies/institutions/figments.

Spoiler

Jonathan Bishop - Official Website

www.jonathanbishop.com

So maybe it’s still in his in-tray.

 

[Cado]

"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"

Is the phrase to keep repeating until the hyper-sensitive sulk off.

 

[nogojones]

Hundreds of letters have been sent, reaching 311 MPs – thank you to those who forwarded the responses to us.

But what about the other MPs who don't use sex workers? How will they find out about it?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

While the media is concentrating on something else...

Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.

wonder just what else they are going to try and sneak in...

Donelan confirms stiffer online safety measures after backbench pressure

One new provision targets senior managers at tech platforms who ignore Ofcom enforcement notices

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ax^]

would Boris not struggled to get this thru


so hiding in a fridge is a better option...

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[JTG]

Amazingly, this means that sharing pics of the Bayeux Tapestry online will become illegal

 

[JTG]

Adverts for P&O Ferries in question but possibly will be fine as not "small boats"

 

[xenon]

utterly fucking cretinus.

 

[xenon]

no more docs about the Dunkirk evacuation can be shown then.

 

[NoXion]

Just what the fuck does the law mean by "positive light", anyway? I doubt that anyone advocating for refugees is saying "yes, it's awesome that desperate people are being forced to cross the Channel in such a risky fashion".

It's like whoever drafted this law doesn't understand a thing about why people might disagree with them.

 

[JTG]

Just what the fuck does the law mean by "positive light", anyway?

Only pics taken on moonless nights are to be allowed

 

[PR1Berske]

The amendment is:

Clause 11, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serioush arm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aimo f entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for thosep urposes.”

The start of Clause 11 is:

11 Safety duties protecting children
(1) This section sets out the duties to protect children’s online safety which applyi n relation to regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed byc hildren.

(2) A duty, in relation to a service, to take or use proportionate measures relatingt o the design or operation of the service to effectively—
(a) mitigate and manage the risks of harm to children in different age
groups, as identified in the most recent children’s risk assessment of thes ervice (see section 10(6)(g)), and
(b) mitigate the impact of harm to children in different age groups
presented by content that is harmful to children present on the service

(3) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes
designed to—

(a) prevent children of any age from encountering, by means of the service,p rimary priority content that is harmful to children (for example, byu sing age verification);
(b) protect children in age groups judged to be at risk of harm from otherc ontent that is harmful to children (or from a particular kind of suchc ontent) from encountering it by means of the service.

 

[savoloysam]

WhatsApp refusing to bow down to pressure from the government. Quite ironic given Facebooks general lack of data privacy protections. My head hurts

WhatsApp would not remove end-to-end encryption for UK law, says chief | WhatsApp | The Guardian

Meta’s head of chat app says it would not comply with the requirements set out in online safety bill

amp.theguardian.com