As we all know by now, our caring government has worked night and day on our behalf to protect us from ‘harm’ and has set out a comprehensive set of rules, regulations and non-guiding guidelines on how we should comply, or else (jailtime and massive, ruinous fines). Now some uncharitable sods have concluded that the State’s intention is to protect us from harm by stopping folk saying anything that State does not like – and assault of free speech, as enshrined in Magna Carter, the Bill of Rights and Common Law, as well as that foreign jobbie, the ECHR.
But come on lads and lasses, they wouldn’t do that, would they, I mean, our esteemed PM Kneel Starmer is on record as saying, to free speech champion JD Vance no less and with whom Kneel ‘got on very well, by the way’ ‘we’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time.’
So there.
The PM and his loving spoonful of a cabinet, backed by our ultra-concerned civil service, are really, really serious about protecting us from harm. And they are really, really concerned about most that dangerous form of harm they can imagine: people speaking their unruly, independent minds. And so they have put aside protecting us from harm from illegal immigrants, some of whom are criminals and rapists, or from people trying to restrict our freedoms for political or religious reasons, or those who are trying to impoverish us by helping themselves to our money and diverting to rich folk who worship the Climate Change God, and cleave to its dogma of Net Zero. No, not a bit of it, they have spent all their time working out how to protect us from other people’s opinions.
I am, of course, talking about the Online Safety Act (OSA), introduced by the Tories and made worse by Labour. Changes to OSA (aka Oppressive Socialist Action). It has caused a lot of discombobulation in genuinely conservative circles, who probably correctly assume that it’s provisions are directed at anyone deemed to be to the right of the wet wing of the fake conservative Tory Party.
The other day we had a bit of a debate about TCW’s decision to shut down its open forum, Let’s Discuss, and restrict the use of links as a result of OSA provisions that came in force at midnight 16 March. It’s not for me to criticise or judge that decision but having looked at the new sections of the Act and Ofcom’s ‘guidelines’, I cannot see the logic behind it. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that it is a precursor to shutting down comments altogether, which would, at least, be logical.
That’s not to say that I have no sympathy with Kathy Gingell and her fears. They are undoubtedly justified, as we have seen just how vicious and biased against the anti-Woke this government, the Establishment and judiciary are, but so far as I can see the changes that came into force a few days ago do not significantly change the actual law, just how on-line service providers comply with it. Her fears were, so far as I can make out, just as valid this time last year.
The OSA was made law on 26 October 2023 after a six year ‘consultation’ process, during which time neither I nor any other voter I know was consulted. The Introduction to the Act states:
(1)This Act provides for a new regulatory framework which has the general purpose of making the use of internet services regulated by this Act safer for individuals in the United Kingdom.
(2)To achieve that purpose, this Act (among other things)—
(a)imposes duties which, in broad terms, require providers of services regulated by this Act to identify, mitigate and manage the risks of harm (including risks which particularly affect individuals with a certain characteristic) from—
(i)illegal content and activity, and
(ii)content and activity that is harmful to children, and
(b)confers new functions and powers on the regulator, OFCOM.
(3)Duties imposed on providers by this Act seek to secure (among other things) that services regulated by this Act are—
(a)safe by design, and
(b)designed and operated in such a way that—
(i)a higher standard of protection is provided for children than for adults,
(ii)users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy are protected, and
(iii)transparency and accountability are provided in relation to those services.
So what has changed? Well, the penalties for a start, which are draconian by any standards, but the main change is that, by midnight 16 March, on-line platform providers in categories subject to Ofsted regulations, must have in place a formal risk assessment analysing risk and having steps to deal with and mitigate them.
In my view the legal fundamentals of the OSA have been there from the beginning, but it is being rolled out over time. Recent and imminent changes are:
● By 16 March 2025: illegal harms duties in force. All providers must complete an illegal harms risk assessment and from this date must take measures to ensure compliance with them.
● By 16 April 2025: all providers must have completed a children’s access assessment (under-18s).
● April 2025: Ofcom publishes guidance for children’s risk assessments and its codes of practice.
● April 2025: Ofcom publishes a further consultation on the next iteration of the illegal harms codes of practice.
So, it seems to me that sites changing their comment procedures are doing so because of the need to implement a Risk Assessment.
Needless to say, the Act and the Ofcom ‘guidelines are hideously opaque and complex. The whole thing could have been set out on 2,000 words, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the British State has used over two million, and in the disdainful, autocratic legalese jargon that can only be produced by that combination of anally-retentive lawyers and bureaucrats our beloved civil service specialises in. If ten reasonably intelligent people were asked to summarise what it all means, you’d end up with twenty-five opinions. A lawyer’s wet dream, which gives ample scope for persecution of unapproved persons. But that was also the case on 15 march 2025.
As Kathy Gingell said in the article, it is not even clear who it is meant to cover. One definition states that OSA applies to ‘services that allow users to post content online or to interact with each other. This includes a range of websites, apps and other services, including … online forums. It is prudent therefore to assume that it applies to sites like FSB and TCW – so long as they allow comments.
I was surprised to learn that some were interpreting the changes to mean that the main criterion and concern is comments in an open forum, like FSB’s Today page, and that comments under an article, if they are on topic, are unaffected. I had looked at the guidelines and seen nothing like it. I’ve looked again and still can’t find anything. I might be wrong of course, as I say the rules are the usual clear as mud public sector dog’s dinner, but so far as can see if you allow comments, specifically user to user comments like our Frederica discussing something directly with Jacqui Derriman or Nanumaga, and allow links, then you must comply with the terms of the OSA.
If a site wishes to avoid falling under Ofcom jackboots, the logic would be to shut down comments altogether, though even then it would still have to look over its shoulder at all the Hate Crime crap.
I won’t bore you with the requirements of the Risk Assessment BS, except to say that it is a long-winded, extremely boring box ticking exercise with ample scope for subjective judgement and objection. I’ve had to assess you lot (as a group, not individually) and the risk of you being harmed by exposure to dodgy comments. I’ve assessed you as robust and at low risk, but I still have to have systems in place to protect you from
child sexual abuse
controlling or coercive behaviour
extreme sexual violence
extreme pornography
fraud
racially or religiously aggravated public order offences
inciting violence
illegal immigration and people smuggling
promoting or facilitating suicide
intimate image abuse
selling illegal drugs or weapons
sexual exploitation
terrorism.
So, if any of you are planning to use FSB to sell illegal drugs or weapons, facilitate people smuggling or any of the rest, stop it.
Seriously though, and we have to take it seriously, FSB does need your help and cooperation in making sure we defend free speech, but also by quickly identifying seriously unacceptable posts by bringing them to our attention through the complaints function at the bottom of the Home page.
Just as importantly, to protect the site we need more moderators, as it is unreasonable to expect any single moderator to read all of the comments, so the more the merrier. And I emphasise that this is critical in keeping the site going.
Being a moderate does not imply or incur any liability. It is always possible that politically motivated far left nutters try to capsize the site by posting something abhorrent and then complaining to Ofcom. That is what those people are like. We are not obliged to prevent such attacks or make them impossible – but we are obliged to spot them quickly and have them removed in a timely manner. This is only possible if we have more moderators.
In summary, all a moderator has to do is to read some comments when they are online, and use their judgement as to their suitability – bearing in mind our commitment to free speech. A moderator can edit or delete a post, letting me know if possible first. A post deleted over an abundance of caution can always be undeleted.
In the eight months FSB has been going, we have had no complaints and no post has had to be deleted because of illegal content. No more than a handful of posts have had to be edited or deleted because they might have been libelous. And that’s it. But I can’t emphasise how important it is to get more moderators - if we want to keep FSB going in its present form.
Finally, welcome to all the new readers and posters we’ve seen in the last few days. I hope you have found a happy online home here and will stick with us. If you have any suggestions for improving the site, please sing out. If you want to do it privately, email us on freespeechbacklash@gmail.com.
And please, we always need articles. So, if you fancy your hand at writing one, please go ahead.