The UK’s first cyberflashing conviction, two weeks after it became a criminal offence, has renewed scrutiny of the scope of the Online Safety Act.
Nicholas Hawkes, a registered child sex offender from Basildon, Essex, sent “unsolicited photos of his genitals” to a woman and a girl aged 15 on 9 February, said The Times. The 39-year-old admitted two counts of sending a photo of genitals to cause alarm, distress or humiliation (punishable by up to two years in jail), and was convicted on Monday at Southend magistrates’ court. He will be sentenced at Basildon crown court in March.
The conviction “shows the new law is working”, said CPS East of England. But the legislation faces vigorous opposition from free-speech campaigners and tech companies, who described it last year as “an unprecedented threat to the privacy, safety and security of every UK citizen” that could embolden “hostile governments” to draft “copy-cat laws”.
What does the Online Safety Act cover?
The legislation, conceived in 2017, spent years mired in government turmoil with multiple ministers and amendments until it was given the all-clear last year.
Much of the protections are designed to hold tech companies to account for content posted on social media, with bosses facing two years in jail if they consistently fail to protect children.
Independent media regulator Ofcom has the power to fine platforms up to £18 million – or 10% of their annual revenue, whichever is higher – if they do not remove illegal content, including sexual abuse, terrorism or death threats.
The amended act also includes several offences that “apply directly to the individuals sending threatening or menacing messages”, said the government’s press release.
As well as cyberflashing, the act criminalises death threats, content that encourages self-harm, “revenge porn” (sharing intimate images without consent), and fake news that aims to cause “non-trivial physical or psychological harm”.
The UK is the first country in the world to criminalise “epilepsy trolling”, or sending flashing images with the intention of provoking seizures.
What are the issues?
At its genesis, the act was necessary to “address online material that was blamed for persuading teenagers to take their own lives”, said The Spectator, but it has now morphed into “a catch-all piece of legislation to suppress any material which someone, somewhere, may regard as ‘legal but harmful'”.
Free-speech campaigners are also “broadly unhappy” with the act, said The New Statesman.
Human rights organisation Article 19 called it “extremely complex and incoherent”, saying it would “undermine freedom of expression and information, [and] the right to privacy”. It also offers “no credible plan” to tackle disinformation and misinformation online, said fact-checking organisation Full Fact.
Others believe it does not go far enough to protect children. The mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey rejected Rishi Sunak’s “insistence” that the bill was adequate, said the BBC. Esther Ghey is campaigning for under-16s to be blocked from social media on smartphones and she told The Guardian that technology companies had a “moral responsibility” to restrict access to harmful content.
To continue reading this article…
Create a free account
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
register for free
Already have an account? Sign in
Subscribe to The Week
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Subscribe & Save
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Unlimited website access is included with Digital and Print + Digital subscriptions.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.