DAVID'S LAW: A NEW ERA OF SOCIAL MEDIA?

The Online Safety bill aims to improve internet safety for its users, especially regarding social media platforms. However, upon the tragic murder of MP Sir David Amess, who outwardly expressed his concern for the safety of politicians online, many current MPs are encouraging an amendment to this Bill to prohibit the use of anonymous social media accounts, now referred to as "David's Law".

Following the publication of a Green Paper on Internet Safety Strategy and a White Paper on Online Harms, the draft of the Online Safety Bill was first published in May 2021. This initiative's main aim is to create a new online accountability regime for regulated internet services (Harbinja, 2021).

This Bill for protection against online harm imposes a duty of care for service providers falling within its scope, specifically, search engine services and user-generated content services, such as Instagram and Facebook.

In practice, these services will be obliged to prevent illegal and harmful content, with a significant focus on content relating to terrorism, racism, and fraud, to protect children from CSEA (child sexual exploitation and abuse) content, and to safeguard the freedom of expression and privacy (Harbinja, 2021).

The OFCOM (Office of Communications) has been tasked with exercising oversight and enforcement of Bill's regime and drafting the codes used to implement the previously mentioned duty of care.

Sir David Amess, a Conservative MP for Southend West, was tragically murdered in October 2021 outside of his constituency surgery. Before his death, he had become "increasingly concerned" for the safety of MPs concerning online abuse, female MPs especially. The murder of Jo Cox, who was the first murdered sitting female MP, occurred only five years ago and seemingly started the discussion concerning the safety of MPs in their day-to-day life and the "toxic environment" surrounding them.

The Online Safety Bill currently permits the use of anonymous and pseudonymous profiles. However, in light of the recent tragedy, many of Amess' fellow MPs are encouraging an amendment to this Bill, in his name, which would prohibit this: now known as "David's Law".

Even before the amendment proposal, this Bill was criticised for emphasising online safety and harm while discarding the high likelihood of possible human rights violations, mainly concerning privacy issues and the freedom of expression (Harbinja, 2021). Since the push for an amendment, these concerns have only grown larger.

The proposed David's law, i.e., banning anonymous and pseudonymous online profiles, also poses threats to the bigger picture. The efficiency of whistleblowing channels, for example, the deliberate non-obligated act of disclosing information only accessible to a limited number of persons relating to the possible illegal activity of an organisation (Jubb, 1999), is highly dependent on factors of anonymity. These channels of anonymity are the anti-fraud tool with the highest implementation rates because of their efficiency (Rodrigues da Silva & Guerra de Sousa, 2017).

In addition to this, another challenge confronting anonymity concerns the freedom of expression in circumstances of dictator regimes. Here, anonymity online, where it opposes the regime at hand, protects the individuals involved (Lugaresi, 2013).

Thus, even though the prohibition of online anonymity may initially seem like a great idea to combat online abuse in general, not only regarding politicians, its application, in reality, may look different in the bigger picture. The benefit of the ban of anonymous profiles online may be lower than the overall detriment that this removal may entail in the bigger picture and its impact on social media (Lugaresi, 2013).

An appointed joint committee is currently scrutinising the Draft Online Safety Bill to establish a new regulatory framework; however, no amendment has been proposed officially at this moment in time (Committees, 2021).

References

Committees, U. P., 2021. Status of the Draft Online Safety Bill. [Online]

Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/534/draft-online-safety-bill-joint-committee/ [Accessed 20 November 2021].

Department for Digital, C. M. a. S., 2021. Draft Online Safety Bill. [Online]

Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985033/Draft_Online_Safety_Bill_Bookmarked.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2021].

Harbinja, E., 2021. The UK's Online Safety Bill: Safe, Harmful, Unworkable?, s.l.: Verjassungsblog.

Jubb, P. J., 1999. Whistleblowing: A Restrictive Definition and Interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), pp. 77-94.

Lugaresi, N., 2013. Online Anonymity: The good, the bad and the ugly. NOVAČNÉ VÝZVY PRE ÚSTAVY A ÚSTAVNÉ SYSTÉMY V GLOBALIZOVANEJ EURÓPE INNOVATIVE CHALLENGES FOR CONSTITUTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS, pp. 757-767.

Rodrigues da Silva, G. & Guerra de Sousa, R., 2017. The influence of the anonymous whistleblowing channel on accounting fraud. Journal of Accounting and Organisations, Volume 30, pp. 46-57.

Wells Branscomb, A., 1995. Anonymity, autonomy, and accountability: a challenge to the First Amendment in Cyberspaces. Yale Law Journal, Volume 104, pp. 1639-1679.