header-logo header-logo

10 February 2022
Issue: 7966 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber
printer mail-detail

Online safety shake-up

Social media companies will be expected to take proactive action to prevent online abuse happening, rather than simply react once abuse has occurred, under proposed legislation

The government announced this week it has accepted Law Commission recommendations to strengthen online safety and stamp out illegal content through an Online Safety Bill. It will create a list of criminal content for tech firms to remove as a priority, including drug and weapons dealings online, people smuggling, revenge porn, fraud, promoting suicide and inciting or controlling prostitution. Ofcom will be given powers to issue fines of up to 10% of annual worldwide turnover to non-compliant sites or block accessibility in the UK.

New criminal offences will be added to the Bill to tackle domestic violence and rape and death threats. These are: ‘genuinely threatening’ communications, such as online threats to rape or kill, punishable by up to five years in prison; harm-based communications, intended to cause serious distress, punishable with up to two years in prison; and knowingly sending false information with the intention of causing non-trivial harm, such as hoax bomb threats, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison.

Law Commissioner Professor Penney Lewis said the proposals would ‘create a more nuanced set of criminal offences’.

According to Nick Grant, Senior Associate at Payne Hicks Beach, the Bill could also lead to a rise in civil claims brought by victims of online abuse.

Grant said: ‘Importantly, the Joint Committee has recommended that the government create further legislation to allow users to sue providers for failure to meet their obligations under the proposed new act. 

‘At the moment, if social media platforms are unwilling to co-operate, it can be expensive and time consuming to remove unlawful content from their platforms and many do not have the resources or resilience to battle with social media giants. In particular, we can see that the revolutionary proposal that social media platforms must proactively prevent the posting of certain types of harmful content (such as revenge porn) rather than to respond reactively to complaints will likely have a substantial impact on the landscape of civil claims against social media platforms more generally.’

Issue: 7966 / Categories: Legal News , Cyber
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll