The UK government is working on the Online Safety Bill to reduce the spread of โharmfulโ content through online platforms.
However, it has been noted that the bill could end up censoring Christian teachings.
The Christian Institute has announced that it appreciates the governmentโs commitment to fighting harmful content. However, it feels that the bill could also make expressing Christian beliefs unlawful.
The Christian Institute noted that the definition of โharmfulโ will be decided by the government, regulators, and Big Tech companies.
The organization feels that the bill does not protect free speech and โcould have unintended consequencesโ like the censorship of Christian teachings on issues such as marriage, sexuality, and gender.
Christian Institute Director Colin Hart argued that the bill โrisks enshrining cancel culture into law.โ
โEvery day we hear accusations that someone is causing harm just for saying what they believe. The eminent Christian doctor, Peter Saunders, had a talk on transsexuality removed by YouTube. JK Rowling was vilified for challenging transgender ideology,โ he said.
โMaya Forstater lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex. At her Employment Tribunal the judge found against Forstater and said her view was โnot worthy of respect in a democratic society.โ Thankfully, this was overturned.
โBut imagine consolidating that power in the hands of Big Tech.
โThey will get to decide what should and shouldnโt be allowed in crucial and controversial areas of debate. Their yardstick will be their own commercial interest and so will inevitably go much further than what the law requires.โ
Hart said that the bill should include free speech protections to protect mainstream Christian beliefs on issues like gender, sexuality, marriage, and parenting.
โThe Bill must be amended to include a presumption in favor of free speech. What is free to say on โthe streetโ must also remain free to say online,โ he said.
Hart also criticized a provision in the bill that makes it a crime to communicate anything that could be deemed โlikely to cause harm to a likely audience.โ
โThe legislation also proposes a new criminal offense for communication deemed โlikely to cause harm to a likely audienceโ. This risks putting harm into the eye of the beholder.
โAny approach that prioritizes the claims of the โoffendedโ is dangerous, particularly when the โlikely audienceโ for online content could be anyone in the world. The Bill risks enshrining cancel culture into law.โ