Key Facts

• Amendment 84 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to modify Ofcom codes for reasons of public policy.
• The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to suggest modifications within a month, with OFCOM required to reply within one month.
• Businesses and experts are wary of the current powers granted in Clause 40.
• The amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to modify Ofcom codes for reasons of public policy.
• Labour and the Carnegie UK Trust argue this undermines Ofcom’s independence.
• Chris Philp cites a need for exceptional circumstances, such as during the COVID pandemic when medical disinformation spread.
• Clause 48 requires regulated services to keep records of risk assessments.
• Regulated services must conduct children's access assessments.
• Ofcom is required to produce guidance aligned with data protection regulation.
• Amendment 43 targets user-generated content on news publisher websites with UK turnover over £100 million.
• The amendment aims to ensure these websites comply with regulations similar to those for Twitter.
• More than twice as many British citizens access newspaper websites monthly compared to the number of Twitter users.
• Wiley posted antisemitic tweets in July 2020, which took Twitter 48 hours to remove.
• Explicitly antisemitic comments remained accessible on The Sun’s website for nearly a week.
• A letter from Dr Corinne Fowler describes the abuse she faced online and its impact on her family.
• IPSO takes an average of six months to process complaints but cannot act if content is not moderated.
• Clause 49 exempts one-to-one live aural communications, raising concerns about child sexual abuse and grooming.
• News website comment sections are excluded from the Bill's scope.
• The government is persuaded by news publishers that comments under articles are integral to free press.
• Social media platforms are designed for virality, unlike news websites.
• Legal but harmful content provisions only apply to category 1 companies.
• The Bill covers harmful interactions in the metaverse without a 'get out of jail free' card.
• Clause 49(5)(c) specifies the exemption does not apply to user-generated content.
• Amendment 76 seeks to add 'but not limited to' after 'including' in clause 189.
• The government's programme allows for criminal investigation procedures involving police requests for information from companies hosting comments.
• Civil recourse exists for libel cases, allowing court orders for organisations like news media websites to disclose identifying information.
• Clause 49 and clause 174(1) of the Bill are mentioned in relation to exemptions and future legislative changes.
• Amendment 107 addresses the media exemption in the Online Safety Bill.
• The current criteria for media exemption are seen as loose and open to abuse.
• Russia Today could potentially benefit from the current loophole in the bill.
• The amendment seeks to extend protections to specialist publishers whose titles are excluded under current drafting.
• Former Secretary of State Mr Whittingdale supports the idea that specialist publishers deserve protection similar to recognised media outlets.
• Gardeners’ World is cited as an example of a niche publication potentially affected by the Bill's provisions.
• Paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 states that a user-to-user service is exempt if its functionalities are limited to posting and sharing comments or reviews relating to provider content.
• The British Medical Journal and other specialist online publications may be subject to specific regulation separate from the Online Safety Bill depending on their functionality.
• Services where users can share freely are within scope of the Bill, while those that limit sharing via another service like Facebook are out of scope.
• The amendment seeks to include overseas offences under the scope of illegal content definitions.
• Amendments are being proposed for Clause 52, page 49, line 5.
• Clause 52 defines illegal content but may not operate as intended.
• The draft Bill’s language required reasonableness in identifying illegal content.
• More than 60,000 people have signed a petition for including women and girls in the Bill.
• Amendment 61 aims to clarify whether the Bill covers overseas content that would be illegal if it occurred in the UK.
• The Bill includes schedule 7 priority offences such as revenge pornography.
• Cyber-flashing is addressed in the legislation.
• There are no direct references in the legislation to violence against women and girls.
• Ofcom can address broader issues through a code of practice.
• Taking, making, and sharing intimate images without consent is described as heinous crimes towards women.
• Clause 52(9) ensures that offences committed elsewhere are still considered under UK law.
• Clause 52(4)(d) includes offences where the intended victim is an individual, covering violence against women and girls.
• The Law Commission is developing proposals expected to be finalized over summer.
• Schedule 5 has already been debated.
• Barbara Keeley argues that they did not have a chance to speak on schedules 5 or 6.
• The Committee agrees to schedules 5 and 6.