UK: Encouraging self-harm to be criminalised in Online Safety Bill

[Jojogu]

The encouragement of self-harm will be criminalised in an update to the Online Safety Bill, the government has said.

Content that encourages someone to physically harm will be targeted in a new offence, making it illegal.

The government said the changes had been influenced by the case of Molly Russell - the 14-year-old who ended her life in November 2017.

BBC News

 

[DeathBecomesMe_2021]

Encouraging anyone to harm or kill themselves should be a crime.

Giving advice, offering support and validating people's struggles isn't the same as encouragement.

 

[jodes2]

I guess it's fair enough

 

[Finding Sirius]

Why do they always use children to push these laws? I certainly don't think that anyone under 18 should have access to this information. However, the fact that they seem to always use the underaged to ram legislation through without proper discussion seems disingenuous and sinister.

 

[DeathBecomesMe_2021]

Why do they always use children to push these laws? I certainly don't think that anyone under 18 should have access to this information. However, the fact that they seem to always use the underaged to ram legislation through without proper discussion seems disingenuous and sinister.

It's because children are more vulnerable and easily influenced than adults. Not to say that adults can't be vulnerable or gullible, it's just that children don't have a voice, so we as adults have a duty towards them to protect them from harm.

 

[Finding Sirius]

It's because children are more vulnerable and easily influenced than adults. Not to say that adults can't be vulnerable or gullible, it's just that children don't have a voice, so we as adults have a duty towards them to protect them from harm.

Fair enough, however, I am skeptical of any government trying to police what people say. I agree that children are vulnerable and should be protected, but should we entrust that duty to politicians? It's a slippery slope.

 

[DeathBecomesMe_2021]

Fair enough, however, I am skeptical of any government trying to police what people say. I agree that children are vulnerable and should be protected, but should we entrust that duty to politicians? It's a slippery slope.

True, a slippery slope indeed.

 

[RainAndSadness]

They removed that part today. And that's a good decision because criminalising "legal but harmful content" is way to vague for a law in the first place. What does that mean? You could ban pretty much ban anything under that new section of the law, which is probably the reason why they dropped that clause today.

Online Safety Bill: Plan to make big tech remove harmful content axed

Minister denies weakening the Online Safety Bill after dropping the "legal but harmful" material measures.

www.bbc.com

Encouraging suicide and self harm is already against the rules of this forum. That means the Online Safety Bill isn't gonna change anything for UK members of this forum. The Online Safety Bill has a lot of issues though regarding censorship.
This article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international non-profit group promoting internet civil liberties, highlights some issues with that bill here:

Experts Condemn The UK Online Safety Bill As Harmful To Privacy And Encryption

The British Parliament may start debating the Online Safety Bill again as soon as this week. The bill is a deeply flawed censorship proposal that would allow U.K. residents to be thrown in jail for what they say online. It would also force online service providers to use government-approved...

www.eff.org

Here is a critical review of the Online Safety Bill:

A critical review of the Online Safety Bill

The UK Parliament has tabled the Online Safety Bill to make the internet safer for users by requiring providers to regulate legal but harmful content …

www.sciencedirect.com

And here is another article praising the most recent revisions, dropping the "legal but harmful" restrictions but still pointing out some flaws that still exist in the bill today:

Latest Amendments to the UK’s Online Safety Bill Are an Improvement But Still Harm Free Expression and Privacy, Says Center for Data Innovation

LONDON—In response to the UK government’s most recent changes to the Online Safety Bill, the Center for Data Innovation issued the following statement from Senior Policy Analyst Kir Nuthi: This week’s Online Safety Bill amendments have been a mixed bag. Our initial read of the changes still finds s

datainnovation.org

This entire bill seems to be just another tool to crack down on free speech and privacy on the internet, which is the actual goal of the social-conservative movement. The UK tried to crack down on their internet, essentially trying to implemet a porn ban a few years ago, which would have set a horrible precedent but they failed. People who want to crack down on the freedom of the internet don't care about the negative implications of their activism and the people who want to see this forum gone would love to ruin the internet forever if that helps them to achieve their goals, as seen in the attacks on Section 230. I mean, removing or changing this important law would ruin the internet, as we know it today, forever
It's important to protect children but you shouldn't sacrifice important liberties and protections of people who want to enjoy a free and safe internet to achieve that. I never understood people who claim it's the duty of the goverment to make the internet a family friendly space in the first place. The internet has always been a place for adults and people need to make the case that the current tools aren't enough to protect children online. They haven't done that yet and they also haven't explained to us why it's the goverments job to do the parenting for them.
Maybe we should start there before we resort to authoritarian bills to crack down on internet freedom.

 

[SFB123]

They removed that part today. And that's a good decision because criminalising "legal but harmful content" is way to vague for a law in the first place. What does that mean? You could ban pretty much ban anything under that new section of the law, which is probably the reason why they dropped that clause today.

Online Safety Bill: Plan to make big tech remove harmful content axed

Minister denies weakening the Online Safety Bill after dropping the "legal but harmful" material measures.

www.bbc.com

Encouraging suicide and self harm is already against the rules of this forum. That means the Online Safety Bill isn't gonna change anything for UK members of this forum. The Online Safety Bill has a lot of issues though regarding censorship.
This article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international non-profit group promoting internet civil liberties, highlights some issues with that bill here:

Experts Condemn The UK Online Safety Bill As Harmful To Privacy And Encryption

The British Parliament may start debating the Online Safety Bill again as soon as this week. The bill is a deeply flawed censorship proposal that would allow U.K. residents to be thrown in jail for what they say online. It would also force online service providers to use government-approved...

www.eff.org

Here is a critical review of the Online Safety Bill:

A critical review of the Online Safety Bill

The UK Parliament has tabled the Online Safety Bill to make the internet safer for users by requiring providers to regulate legal but harmful content …

www.sciencedirect.com

And here is another article praising the most recent revisions, dropping the "legal but harmful" restrictions but still pointing out some flaws that still exist in the bill today:

Latest Amendments to the UK’s Online Safety Bill Are an Improvement But Still Harm Free Expression and Privacy, Says Center for Data Innovation

LONDON—In response to the UK government’s most recent changes to the Online Safety Bill, the Center for Data Innovation issued the following statement from Senior Policy Analyst Kir Nuthi: This week’s Online Safety Bill amendments have been a mixed bag. Our initial read of the changes still finds s

datainnovation.org

This entire bill seems to be just another tool to crack down on free speech and privacy on the internet, which is the actual goal of the social-conservative movement. The UK tried to crack down on their internet, essentially trying to implemet a porn ban a few years ago, which would have set a horrible precedent but they failed. People who want to crack down on the freedom of the internet don't care about the negative implications of their activism and the people who want to see this forum gone would love to ruin the internet forever if that helps them to achieve their goals, as seen in the attacks on Section 230. I mean, removing or changing this important law would ruin the internet, as we know it today, forever
It's important to protect children but you shouldn't sacrifice important liberties and protections of people who want to enjoy a free and safe internet to achieve that. I never understood people who claim it's the duty of the goverment to make the internet a family friendly space in the first place. The internet has always been a place for adults and people need to make the case that the current tools aren't enough to protect children online. They haven't done that yet and they also haven't explained to us why it's the goverments job to do the parenting for them.
Maybe we should start there before we resort to authoritarian bills to crack down on internet freedom.

Damn this online safety bill. Annoying pro-lifers trying to force me to stick around even more. I'm long overdue I'm afraid

 

[membo]

Fair enough, however, I am skeptical of any government trying to police what people say. I agree that children are vulnerable and should be protected, but should we entrust that duty to politicians? It's a slippery slope.

- https://nypost.com/2022/03/31/twitter-user-sentenced-to-community-service-for-offensive-post/
- https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arr...er-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nd-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html

> 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010

UK doesn't have 1st amendment like the US, so they are literally arrested and sentenced to weeks of community service. Think twice before reposting a meme or saying something mean on twitter, or you could be arrested. Arresting people is their way of keeping it a welcoming and inclusive space for all people who share the right opinions.