Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to
take to remove anonymity from persons who post racist and other
similarly offensive material attacking (1) sportspeople, and (2)
other high profile public figures, on social media sites.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport () (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that being anonymous online
does not give anyone the right to abuse others. We are taking
steps through the online harms regulatory framework to ensure
that online abuse is addressed, whether anonymous or not. The
police already have a range of legal powers to identify
individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for
online abuse. We are working with law enforcement to review
whether the current powers are sufficient to tackle illegal
anonymous abuse online.
(Lab) [V]
Can the noble Baroness be more specific about what the online
safety Bill will achieve? Presumably, it will force social media
companies to take down the racist and sexist rantings of some of
their customers and lead to prosecutions where the abuse goes far
beyond any free-speech justification. How much has happened since
the Culture Secretary’s welcome statement on 8 February that
those companies can start showing their duty of care to
footballers today by weeding out racist abuse now, and will
football be a specific priority in the hate crime unit looking at
online discrimination against protected characteristics, as
specified under the 2010 Equality Act?
(Con)
The Government are absolutely committed to making the internet a
safe place for all, and of course that includes footballers and
other public figures, but it also, very importantly, includes
children, other vulnerable people and the general public. A key
part of making this work is the duty of care that we will be
imposing on social media companies, with clear systems of user
redress and strong enforcement powers from Ofcom. I am happy to
take the noble Lord’s suggestions regarding the place of
footballers within the hate crime unit back to the department
and, in relation to the equalities issue which he raises, he will
be aware that it was very clear in the 2019 social media good
practice code that social media companies are expected to have
regard to protected characteristics.
[V]
My Lords, the requirement to love our neighbours as ourselves
makes practical demands of our online behaviour: not only what is
posted but also what is endorsed, what is given the oxygen of
repetition and what is tolerated. The digital common good is
threatened from both sides: by those who post racist and
offensive material and by some social media sites that craft
algorithms to curate, propagate and perpetuate in order to
maximise income. So will the Government give urgent consideration
to implementing a code of practice for both hate crime and wider
legal harms, perhaps along the lines of the model code that
Carnegie UK and a number of other civil society organisations,
including my office, recently co-drafted?
(Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises very important points. He will
be aware that the Law Commission is reviewing the legislation in
relation to offensive online communications to make sure that it
is fit for purpose, and that its final recommendations will be
made this summer. We are also working more widely with law
enforcement to review whether we have sufficient powers to
address illegal abuse online.
(Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend include, in the reporting and duty
of care on social media companies, harassment and bullying in the
way that we have seen happen when people break off relationships
or are threatened because they do not agree with a particular
point of view? I have heard from a number of people who have been
very frightened of going back on to social media because of the
attacks that they have had to endure. Will she also make sure
that media companies have enough resources to police and that the
required processes are in place to do so?
(Con)
My noble friend raises important points about harassment and
bullying. The pile-on harassment to which she refers is one of
the specific issues that the Law Commission will be making
recommendations on. She mentioned the resources of social media
companies, and we are less concerned about them. We feel that
they have ample resources, but we will also make sure that Ofcom
is fully resourced to respond.
(CB)
[V]
My Lords, although we need to protect freedom of speech, urgent
action is needed to deal with abuse of free speech on social
media. Does the Minister agree that social media outlets should
be required to remove material that contravenes race hate and
libel laws and limit how many times messages are forwarded, as
those who post racist and other offensive materials are not
entitled to have their voices amplified?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right: what is illegal offline should be
illegal online, and it is very clear that the social media
companies should remove that content. Where there is harmful but
legal content, they need to have very clear systems and processes
to make sure that it can be removed quickly.
(Lab)
My Lords, this is not just a problem for famous people. If
anything, it is a much more serious problem for members of the
public. For example, mothers campaigning in Scotland to get
schools reopened last year were attacked by anonymous cybernats
and their children were threatened via direct messages on
Twitter. Twitter is a real problem here, but there is a very
simple solution, which is for Twitter or the Government to ban
anonymous accounts. That would stop the abuse, it would ensure
that anybody who tries to be abusive or threatening can be
prosecuted and it would be a simple measure for those running
Twitter, given the scale of their operation now, to introduce.
Will the Government call them in, insist on it and, if they will
not do it themselves, do it for them?
(Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of the general public
and the troubling example that he just shared with the House.
However, banning anonymous accounts is not as simple as he
suggests. They provide important protection for a wide range of
vulnerable people, as well as journalists’ sources and others—so
these are complex issues that we aim to address through the Bill.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, I am interested in the Minister’s comment that the
department is in discussions with the police about the use of
existing powers. Would it not be a good idea for the police to
pursue a number of high-profile cases of bullying of children,
rampant racism or threats to our democracy under existing powers
until we get the proper legislation in place?
(Con)
Just to be clear, I was speaking on behalf of the Government in
conversation with the police. The noble Lord will be aware that
the primary responsibility for this matter sits with the Home
Office. The police are independent in how they pursue these
cases.
(Con)
My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell,
about ordinary people who are humiliated and persecuted. May I
suggest to my noble friend that, when looking at strengthening
the law, the Government look at increasing penalties on media
companies that do not obey the laws? Nothing has more effect than
hitting the pocket.
(Con)
My noble friend is quite right and the framework will aim to
protect all users, particularly children and vulnerable users. As
for hitting the pocket, she may be aware that the maximum fine
that can be levied in future will be 10% of global turnover.
(Lab) [V]
Footballers, women sports commentators and public figures
generally receive daily racist, homophobic, misogynist vile abuse
and personal threats inciting hatred and physical attacks. The
Minister has promised that the Government will act against this
in the online harms legislation. Players and commentators alike
have acted against abuse but they need support. When will the
Government bring forward their Bill; are they waiting for the Law
Commission; what will its scope be in tackling abuse; will its
codes be voluntary or statutory; what powers will Ofcom have to
act; and will the Bill contain measures removing the anonymity of
abusers, difficult though that may be, who post abusive material?
(Con)
I may answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions in writing
but the Bill will be brought forward this year.
(CB) [V]
Facebook already has a real-names policy but users often provide
fake ID. To enforce real-name identity, a government-backed ID
scheme would have to be introduced. However, bearing in mind the
current public suspicion of surrendering personal data to tech
platforms, are there any plans for the Government to introduce
such a digital ID policy for all users?
(Con)
The Government have an open mind on all these issues and the
noble Viscount will be aware that the Secretary of State has
indicated that he is minded to have pre-legislative scrutiny,
which will provide a chance for transparent and robust scrutiny
of issues such as that.
