In this Institute of Economic Affairs briefing, host Callum Price interviews Matthew Lesh, IEA Public Policy Fellow and author of a 2022 briefing paper on the Online Safety Bill.
Callum, good talk. Yes it seems the IEA and Mathew did predict the future!…. So, back to the future!….why are you still worried about this bill? What is it you’re frightened of at the IEA? This bill is not about economic affairs directly. It’s about adults and adult content being underhandedly forced on minors and putting a stop to it. Surely, you are arguing that the act should not be in place as it infringes on the rights of adults to obtain anything on the internet via platforms who refuse to police themselves!? So what is wrong with protecting our minors from harm? As citizens we all have a duty of care to each other. Whether we accept it or not. If you don’t accept it then laws provide the framework by which we can deduce our duty. Platforms who refuse to accept that duty and allow its platform to publish such material and allow adults to corrode the minds with content that is meant to harm or corrode them should be censured. My Father went to war at 15 to fight a war for freedom and free speech. I would also fight for that right, it allows us to converse here. But, this bill is to protect children from unscrupulous adults or other children from harmful content. There is no debate that can stand up to consensus of the spirit of that aim, that would stop that protection of a child from an adult because it stops free speech! To even think free speech is a just cause to attack its aim is ridiculous. I fail to see an argument here? It’s not stopping you as adults to talk, converse or view adult material. It’s not infringing your rights. But the hope is it will infringe the rights of those who want to harm or hide or control or coercively control young minds into their need to teach! The platforms must adhere to the common sense laws. Remember, law is first in spirit of the words of the law. And it’s a scale of justice that’s being used here. A balance of law and enforcement against such criminal acts balanced against rights under the law and the spirit of the law. Of course it’s a balance. We can’t any Tom Dick or Harriet getting a fast track line to the ears of a child who isn’t their child! Children are protected, quit rightly. Those in charge are their parents and their school teachers who are both charged with their duty of care. No other right is ever greater and never should be. Of course the platforms have to adhere to local conditions. And if they are lawless then they must be banished. We have film classification and advertising laws. Child’s rights laws to protect them and to think they are free to do as they wish us also absurd. I can see that you as journalists cannot accept any censorship if your beloved free speech but even you have a duty of care to be decent and truthful and honest and are subject to laws. These platforms have been lawless for far too long. They refuse to act properly do the law has been brought up to date. And I for one am grateful that the law has been introduced to put right thus wrong. As for your rights, they haven’t changed or been infringed beyond reasonable. A balance of scales is still on the right side. Please can the podcasts revert to economic content? As for VPNs ban them! Why not? They hide true freedom of speech. It’s a double standard. And for that reason must be banned. We must be free to use the platforms without some citizens not having their freedom to speak aloud! Transparency is never a problem. Hiding is.
Callum, good talk. Yes it seems the IEA and Mathew did predict the future!…. So, back to the future!….why are you still worried about this bill? What is it you’re frightened of at the IEA? This bill is not about economic affairs directly. It’s about adults and adult content being underhandedly forced on minors and putting a stop to it. Surely, you are arguing that the act should not be in place as it infringes on the rights of adults to obtain anything on the internet via platforms who refuse to police themselves!? So what is wrong with protecting our minors from harm? As citizens we all have a duty of care to each other. Whether we accept it or not. If you don’t accept it then laws provide the framework by which we can deduce our duty. Platforms who refuse to accept that duty and allow its platform to publish such material and allow adults to corrode the minds with content that is meant to harm or corrode them should be censured. My Father went to war at 15 to fight a war for freedom and free speech. I would also fight for that right, it allows us to converse here. But, this bill is to protect children from unscrupulous adults or other children from harmful content. There is no debate that can stand up to consensus of the spirit of that aim, that would stop that protection of a child from an adult because it stops free speech! To even think free speech is a just cause to attack its aim is ridiculous. I fail to see an argument here? It’s not stopping you as adults to talk, converse or view adult material. It’s not infringing your rights. But the hope is it will infringe the rights of those who want to harm or hide or control or coercively control young minds into their need to teach! The platforms must adhere to the common sense laws. Remember, law is first in spirit of the words of the law. And it’s a scale of justice that’s being used here. A balance of law and enforcement against such criminal acts balanced against rights under the law and the spirit of the law. Of course it’s a balance. We can’t any Tom Dick or Harriet getting a fast track line to the ears of a child who isn’t their child! Children are protected, quit rightly. Those in charge are their parents and their school teachers who are both charged with their duty of care. No other right is ever greater and never should be. Of course the platforms have to adhere to local conditions. And if they are lawless then they must be banished. We have film classification and advertising laws. Child’s rights laws to protect them and to think they are free to do as they wish us also absurd. I can see that you as journalists cannot accept any censorship if your beloved free speech but even you have a duty of care to be decent and truthful and honest and are subject to laws. These platforms have been lawless for far too long. They refuse to act properly do the law has been brought up to date. And I for one am grateful that the law has been introduced to put right thus wrong. As for your rights, they haven’t changed or been infringed beyond reasonable. A balance of scales is still on the right side. Please can the podcasts revert to economic content? As for VPNs ban them! Why not? They hide true freedom of speech. It’s a double standard. And for that reason must be banned. We must be free to use the platforms without some citizens not having their freedom to speak aloud! Transparency is never a problem. Hiding is.