Informed 07 Update Safety or censorship? Mat Keynon


Since the Online Safety Act (OSA) came into force on 25 July it has prompted a debate over free speech and how it can protect both citizens and journalists from online harm. Under the OSA, Ofcom makes online


services safer for the people who use them and ensures companies have effective systems in place to protect users using digital platforms. Among other things, the act is


designed to stop under-18s accessing pornography and harmful content and on 20 November Ofcom issued a £50,000 fine against the provider of a nudification site for failing to use age-checks to protect children from online pornography. It also said 20 more porn services are targeted for enforcement. In July the act took a batering over the


age verification tools being put up by some companies online in order to comply with the act aſter security consultant Paul Moore claimed on Elon Musk’s social media platform X that one age verification system can be got around using an image of technology secretary Peter Kyle’s face. Kyle also enraged some right-wing politicians, including Reform leader Nigel Farage, aſter suggesting critics of the act


Journalist Safety Liaison Officers Te NUJ welcomed the introduction of a Journalist Safety Liaison Officer (JSLO) in every UK police force, giving journalists access to support when facing abuse or threats. Te government says JSLOs are a recognition of the dangers journalists face and will ensure crimes are properly recorded and addressed. JSLOs can also give safety guidance before high-risk events. Te NUJ has


are “on the side” of predators such as Jimmy Savile. X (formerly Twiter) itself became involved in the debate, claiming the OSA is “seriously infringing” free speech.


Outside these issues, the NUJ is highlighting how the act protects journalists from online harm and ensures proper fact checking. In January Meta moved to scrap its U.S. partnerships with established fact-checking outlets - ending contracts with respected newsrooms, reporters, and nonprofits - and shiſted instead to an X-style “community notes” system. At the delegate meeting in April, NUJ members rejected Meta’s claims that


played a significant role in the initiative’s instigator, the National Commitee for the Safety of Journalists, and will continue to meet police and government to ensure the scheme assists journalists as it should. Te JSLO list is held by the union and can be found on the NUJ website behind the membership login. We also urge journalists to report abuse, harassment and intimidation using our Journalists’ Safety Tracker.


fact-checkers were politically biased and censorship. Such decisions were deplored with delegates arguing that the move to user-powered ‘community notes’ will degrade the quality of online information and fuel a greater spread of false, offensive and extreme material. Conference also instructed the NEC to oppose any moves to scrap fact-checking programmes outside the US and to urge the UK government to support the EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation. Tis includes the requirements


for platforms to work with factcheckers to reduce the risks of online disinformation and to provide ‘fair financial contributions’ for the work of fact-checkers.


Members also asked the NEC to call upon the UK government and Ofcom to make effective use of the provisions of the Online Safety Act to ensure that journalistic standards are maintained through application of a News Quality Obligation and ensure that journalists are beter protected from online abuse and threats. Another technology-related issue on the NUJ’s radar is facial recognition. Recently the Home Office launched a ten-week public consultation on whether it should be used more oſten, which we are exploring in relation to how it affects journalists.


Anonymity for firearms officers


Te NUJ has joined JUSTICE, the News Media Association, Society of Editors, and others in signing a leter to Shabana Mahmood, UK home secretary, calling for the government to abandon plans to grant a presumption of anonymity to police firearms officers facing criminal proceedings. Te leter notes that courts already possess powers to grant defendants anonymity


where necessary and that the ability of media to report on criminal proceedings involving firearms officers “would be severely impeded, leaving a vacuum which would be filled by misinformation and rumour.” General secretary Laura Davison added that proposals “pose grave harm to public interest journalism” and thus undermine the principles of transparency, public understanding and accountability.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12