![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
It is commonly recognised that the publication of false information can be harmful to the public sphere. The Online Safety Act 2023 places statutory responsibilities on regulated services to prevent the publication of certain false information. This article interrogates the regime’s compatibility with established free speech law and theory. I argue that there is a disconnect between the legislation and the legal and theoretical principles underpinning free speech, which could have insidious and long-lasting implications for the right and the public sphere.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Online Harms White Paper: Full Government Response to the Consultation (CP 354, 2020), [34], 84–85.
2 For example, see: J Bayer, I Katsirea et al, European Parliament, ‘The Fight against Disinformation and the Right to Freedom of Expression’, July 2021; P Coe, ‘The Draft Online Safety Bill and the Regulation of Hate Speech: Have We Opened Pandora’s Box?’ (2022) 14 Journal of Media Law 50, 51.
3 Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom, ‘In News We Trust: Keeping Faith in the Future of Media’ (Oxford Media Convention, 19 July 2021) (Keynote speech).
4 HM Government, Online Harms White Paper (CP 57, 2019).
5 Coe (n 2) 51.
6 P Coe, Media Freedom in the Age of Citizen Journalism (Edward Elgar 2021), 74–85.
7 For example, see House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, Free for All? Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age (HL Paper 54, 22 July 2021); M Earp, ‘UK Online Safety Bill Raises Censorship Concerns and Questions on Future of Encryption’, Committee to Protect Journalists, 25 May 2021; L Kirkconnell-Kawana, ‘Online Safety Bill: Five Thoughts on its Impact on Journalism’ Media@LSE, 3 June 2021; C Elsom, ‘Safety without Censorship. A Better Way to Tackle Online Harms’ Centre for Policy Studies, September 2020.
8 Coe (n 2) 51. According to Ofcom’s current roadmap to regulation, the regulator will adopt a phased approach to the OSA’s implementation: <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/information-for-industry/roadmap-to-regulation/0623-update> accessed 14 December 2023.
9 The vagueness and incorrect application of the terminology is well documented in literature: T McGonagle, ‘“Fake News”: False Fears or Real Concerns?’ (2017) 35 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 203, 203–09; T Venturini, ‘Confession of a FakeNews Scholar’, (2018) 68th Annual Conference – International Communication Association, Prague; E Shattock, ‘Fake News in Strasbourg: Electoral Disinformation and Freedom of Expression in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2022) 13(1) European Journal of Law and Technology, 4–5; E C Tandoc Jr. et al, ‘Defining “Fake News”’ (2018) 6(2) Digital Journalism, 137–53.
10 Council of Europe, ‘Dealing with Propaganda, Misinformation and Fake News’: <https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/dealing-with-propaganda-misinformation-and-fake-news> accessed 11 December 2023.
11 Online Harms White Paper (n 4), 23.
12 P N Howard, Lie Machines (Yale University Press 2020), 15.
13 Law Commission, Modernising Communications Offences: A Final Report (HC 547, Law Com 399, 2021).
14 Ibid. According to Full Fact misinformation is ‘often deliberately designed to be not false but to create a false impression’ and that it ‘is often simple to manipulate a false claim into a true claim that is in effect misleading’ [3.44], 86; See also, Demos’s submission at [3.27], 81.
15 Council of Europe (n 10).
16 P Bernal, ‘Fakebook: Why Facebook Makes the Fake News Problem Inevitable’ (2018) 69(4) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 513, 516–19; The Internet, Warts and All (Cambridge University Press 2018), chp. 9; I Cram, ‘Keeping the Demos Out of Liberal Democracy? Participatory Politics, ‘Fake News’ and the Online Speaker’ (2019) 11(2) Journal of Media Law 113, 129.
17 T Driberg, Beaverbrook: A Study in Power and Frustration (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1956), 213.
18 Coe (n 6), 191–192; J Oster, Media Freedom as a Fundamental Right (Cambridge University Press, 2015), 38–39; for detailed commentary on press malfeasance generally, see: P Wragg, A Free and Regulated Press: Defending Coercive Independent Press Regulation (Hart Publishing 2020). From the ECtHR, see: Mosley v United Kingdom App. no. 48009/08 (ECtHR 10 May 2011), [114]; Von Hannover v Germany (No 1) App. no. 59320/00 (ECtHR 24 June 2004), [65]; Hachette Filipacchi Associes v France App. no. 12268/03 (ECtHR 23 July 2009), [40]; Eerikainen and others v Finland App. no. 3514/02 (ECtHR 10 February 2009), [62]; Standard Verlags GmbH v Austria (No 2) App. no. 21277/05 (ECtHR 4 June 2009), [52]; MGN Ltd v United Kingdom App. no. 39401/04 (ECtHR 18 January 2011), [143].
19 Coe (n 6), 81–85; A Bruns et al, ‘When a Virus Goes Viral: Pros and Cons to the Coronavirus Spread on Social Media’ Inforrm, 22nd March 2020.
20 ibid. (Coe, Bruns); P Coe, ‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Social Media during the Coronavirus Pandemic’ (2020) 25(3) Communications Law 119, 119–22.
21 Coe (n 6) 68.
22 ibid 70–72.
23 N Fenton, ‘Regulation Is Freedom: Phone Hacking, Press Regulation and the Leveson Inquiry – the Story so far’ (2018) 23(3) Communications Law 118, 119.
24 ibid.
25 R L Weaver, From Gutenberg to the Internet: Free Speech, Advancing Technology, and the Implications for Democracy (2nd edn, Carolina Academic Press 2019), 202.
26 Coe (n 6) 68; Cram (n 16) 129.
27 The Cairncross Review, A Sustainable Future for Journalism (12th February 2019) 33.
28 ibid.
29 Ipsos Veracity Index 2022 <https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-2022>.
30 People born from 1997 onwards: M Dimock, ‘Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins’ (Pew Research Centre, 17th January 2019).
31 Egypt has the lowest ranking at 8 per cent: King’s College London, World Values Survey March 2023. See also: Statista, Share of adults who trust news media most of the time in selected countries worldwide as of February 2023: https://www.statista.com/statistics/308468/importance-brand-journalist-creating-trust-news/ accessed 14th December 2023.
32 Coe (n 6) 69.
33 Ofcom, News Consumption in the UK: 2023 (July 2023), 3–4.
34 ibid 14.
35 Howard (n 12), 12.
36 S Kirchgaessner et al, ‘Revealed: The Hacking and Disinformation Team Meddling in Elections’, The Guardian, 15th February 2023. See also: D Milmo and A Hern, ‘Elections in UK and US at Risk from AI-driven Disinformation, say experts’, The Guardian, 20th May 2023. See also: House of Commons Digital, Culture Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘Fake News’: Final Report (HC 1791, 18 February 2019), 68–77; For a global perspective on this issue, see generally: S Bradshaw and P N Howard, The Global Disinformation Order 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation (Oxford Internet Institute and University of Oxford 2019).
37 Reuters Institute, University of Oxford, Digital News Report 2023, 17.
38 Of those surveyed in the UK, the most common false information categories were politics, climate change, the war in Ukraine and, even now, Covid. Ibid.
39 Howard (n 12) 18.
40 As does section 1(1)(a)(iii) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Analysing both the 2003 and 1988 Acts, and their respective false information offences, is beyond the scope of this article. I focus on section 127(2) because this is the offence which is most commonly engaged in relation to social media: D McGoldrick, ‘The Limits of Freedom of Expression on Facebook and Social Networking Sites: A UK Perspective,’ (2013) 13 Human Rights Law Review 125, 132 citing D Ormerod, ‘Telecommunications: Sending Grossly Offensive Message By Means of a Public Electronic Communications Network’ (2007), Jan, Criminal Law Review, 98–100.
41 Communications Act 2003 127(2)(a)-(b).
42 ibid 127(2)(a).
43 ibid. See also: Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Social Media and other Electronic Communications’, Legal Guidance, 9th January 2023.
44 Coe (n 2) 57–58.
45 Law Commission (n 13), [3.25], 81.
46 ibid. [1.5], 2.
47 ibid. [3.13], 78.
48 This was updated in 2022 in line with the European Union’s Digital Services Act. This Act came into force on the 25th of August 2023 for very large online platforms, such as X and Facebook. It becomes fully applicable to other entities on the 17th of February 2024. The UK will not be subject to it due to our exit from the European Union.
49 The same can be said for the EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech. See: Coe (n 2) 56–60; T Quintel and C Ullrich, ‘Self-regulation of Fundamental Rights?’ The EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech, related initiatives and beyond in B Petkova and T Ojanen (eds), Fundamental Rights Protection Online. The Future Regulation of Intermediaries (Edward Elgar 2021) 197–229.
50 European Commission, Assessment of the Code of Practice on Disinformation – Achievements and Areas for Further Improvement (Commission Staff Working Document) swd(2020) 180 final 7–19; P Cavaliere, ‘The Truth in Fake News: How Disinformation Laws Are Reframing the Concepts of Truth and Accuracy on Digital Platforms’ (2022) 3(4) European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 481, section 3.
51 Shattock (n 9) 3.
52 Dawes (n 3).
53 Coe (n 20) 121.
54 Impress Standards Code and Guidance, clause 1: <https://www.impressorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Impress-Standards-Code.pdf#page=15>.
55 Bernal, Warts and All (n 16) 247–48.
56 Dawes (n 3).
57 In R (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323, 350 Lord Bingham stated that the ‘duty of the national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less’.
58 R (on the application of Quark Fishing Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 1 AC 529, [2006], 34 per Lord Nicholls. See also: P Wragg, ‘A Freedom to Criticise? Evaluating the Public Interest in Celebrity Gossip after Mosley and Terry’ (2010) 2(2) Journal of Media Law 295, 314.
59 [2004] 2 AC 323.
60 Section 6(1) states: ‘[I]t is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right’; pursuant to section 6(3), the definition of ‘public authority’ includes the courts.
61 It is unclear what amounts to ‘special circumstances’: see Wragg (n 58) 314.
62 ibid.
63 Handyside v United Kingdom App no 5493/72 (ECHR, 7 December 1976) [49]. See also: Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No. 1) App no 6538/74 (ECHR, 26 April 1979) [65]; Lingens v Austria App no 9815/82 (ECHR, 8 July 1986) [41]; Axel Springer AG v Germany (No. 1) App no 39954/08 (ECHR, 7 February 2012) [78]; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland App no 13778/88 (ECHR, 25 June 1992) [63].
64 D J Harris et al, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2009) 444–45; In Salov v Ukraine App. No. 65518/01, 6 September 2005, the Court found, at [13]: ‘Article 10 of the Convention as such does not prohibit discussion or dissemination of information received even if it is strongly suspected that this information might not be truthful. To suggest otherwise would deprive persons of the right to express their views and opinions about statements made in the mass media and would thus place an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of expression set forth in Article 10 of the Convention.’
65 J Hoboken et al., ‘The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through internet services and the regulation of political advertising’, IViR, December 2019, 39; I Katsirea, ‘Fake News: Reconsidering the Value of Untruthful Expression in the Face of Regulatory Uncertainty’ (2018) 10(2) Journal of Media Law 159, 171–76; Bayer (n 2) 24, 26.
66 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, per Lord Steyn, 126. See also: R (on the application of Lord Carlisle of Berriew QC and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 60 per Lord Kerr, [164].
67 J Oster, European and International Media Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017), 41; V Blasi, ‘The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory’ (1977) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 521, 554; E Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 2005) 6–7; P Wragg, ‘Mill’s Dead Dogma: The Value of Truth to Free Speech Jurisprudence’ (2013), Apr, Public Law 363.
68 J S Mill, On Liberty, Essays on Politics and Society in J.M. Robson (ed), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. XVIII (University of Toronto Press, 1977) ch. 2, 228–59.
69 Salov (n 64) [13]; As stated below, the argument from democratic self–governance is chief among the theories supporting the ECtHR's free speech jurisprudence. However, it has been argued that libertarianism remains the de facto communication theory for online speech in Western democracies, and the two theories that predominantly underpin libertarianism are the argument from truth and the marketplace of ideas. See P Coe, ‘(Re)embracing Social Responsibility Theory as a Basis for Media Speech: Shifting the Normative Paradigm for a Modern Media' (2018) 69(4) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 403, 406.
70 F Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge University Press 1982) 25.
71 J Gray, Mill on Liberty: A Defence (2nd edn, Routledge 1996) 110.
72 Schauer (n 70) 20.
73 Mill (n 68) 217–23.
74 For analysis of this aspect of Mill’s argument, see: C MacLeod, ‘Mill on the Liberty of Thought and Discussion’ in A Stone and F Schauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 2021) 3–19, 8–10.
75 Mill (n 68) 258; See generally: Barendt (n 67) 8.
76 ibid (Mill) 229.
77 ibid 252, 258.
78 ibid 258.
79 ibid 258; See also: Wragg (n 18) 139–40; Wragg (n 67) 365.
80 ibid (Mill) 243.
81 Schauer (n 70) 26.
82 ibid 15.
83 Coe (n 6) 79–85, 151–53.
84 ibid. See also: K Klonick, ‘The New Governors: The People, Rules and Processes Governing Online Speech’ (2018) 131 Harvard Law Review 1599, 1665; A Koltay, New Media and Freedom of Expression Rethinking the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Sphere (Hart Publishing 2019), 199; N Stroud, ‘Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure’ (2008) 30 Political Behaviour 341–65.
85 In Simms (n 66) 126, Lord Steyn treated Mill’s argument from truth and Justice Holmes’s marketplace of ideas as interchangeable. This view is supported by commentators such as Schauer (n 70) 15–16. cf: Coe (n 6) 130–31; Wragg (n 67) 368–69, V Blasi, ‘Reading Holmes through the Lens of Schauer’ (1997) 72(5) Notre Dame Law Review 1343, 1355, Barendt (n 67) 11–13, who treat the theory as a distinct interpretation, or form, of the argument from truth.
86 250 US 616 (1919).
87 250 US 616 (1919), 630–31.
88 ibid; See also Gitlow v New York 268 US 652 (1925), 673 per Justice Holmes.
89 Barendt (n 67) 12; E Barendt, ‘The First Amendment and the Media’ in I Loveland (ed), Importing the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Expression in Britain, Europe and the USA (Hart Publishing 1998) 43–46; J Weinberg, ‘Broadcasting and Speech’ (1993) 81 California Law Review 1103, 1162.
90 Barendt (n 67) 12.
91 R Abel, Speech and Respect (Stevens & Sons Limited 1994) 48; D Milo, Defamation and Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 2008) 57.
92 J Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Polity Press 1962); The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Beacon Press 1984), 25, 39, 99; The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason (Beacon Press 1987), 120, 319; Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (William Rehg trans., Polity Press 1996).
93 Weinberg (n 89); J Skorupski, John Stuart Mill (Routledge 1991) 371–72.
94 Coe (n 6) 151.
95 ibid.
96 Weinberg (n 89) 1162, 1159–160.
97 For example, see Lingens v Austria (1986) A 103, [42]; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125, [59]; Bergens Tidende v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16, [48]; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland App no 13778/88 (ECHR, 25 June 1992), [64]. Helen Fenwick and Gavin Phillipson observe that only the argument from democratic self-governance has been prominently employed by the ECtHR: H Fenwick and G Phillipson, Media Freedom under the Human Rights Act (Oxford University Press 2006) 39, 707–10.
98 R Bork ‘Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems’ (1971) 47 Indiana Law Journal 1, 27–28; J Oster, ‘Theory and Doctrine of “Media Freedom” as a Legal Concept’ (2013) 5(1) Journal of Media Law 57, 69.
99 A Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People (Oxford University Press 1960) 42; A Meiklejohn, ‘The First Amendment is an Absolute’ [1961] Supreme Court Review 245, 255–257.
100 For example, see Lingens v Austria (1986) A 103, [42]; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (2000) 29 EHRR 125, [59]; Bergens Tidende v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 16, [48]; Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland App no 13778/88 (ECHR, 25 June 1992), [64].
101 Simms (n 66), per Lord Steyn at 126; Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited [2001] 2 AC 127 (HL) per Lord Cooke at 220; Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359 (HL) per Baroness Hale at [158].
102 Oster (n 67) 40.
103 Habermas (n 92).
104 Coe (n 6) 81–85.
105 See OSA, s1.
106 Online Harms White Paper (n 4), 6 [7], 30.
107 Lord Bishop of Oxford, HL Deb 18th May 2021, vol. 812, col. 517.
108 Coe (n 2) 66.
109 In the OSA, the safety duties relating to adults are set out at sections 10 (user-to-user services) and 27 (search services) and for children at sections 12 and 29 (user-to-user and search services respectively).
110 OSA, ss17,19,22.
111 Coe (n 2) 66.
112 OSA, Sched 13, para 4.
113 ibid, s144.
114 ibid, s226.
115 ibid, s3(1).
116 ibid, s229.
117 ibid, s95.
118 ibid, Sched 11, para 1.
119 This amendment was tabled by Baroness Morgan of Cotes: <https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/stages/17765/amendments/96158> accessed 13 December 2023.
120 OSA, s97.
121 ibid, Sched 11, para 2.
122 ibid, Sched 11, para 2(10).
123 ibid, Sched 11, para 1 and s224(3).
124 DCMS (n 1), [34], 84–85; N Dorries, Statement UIN HCWS19: <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-07-07/hcws194> accessed 13 December 2023.
125 HL Deb (n 107).
126 For example, see: Carla Lockhart, MP for Upper Bann, HC Deb. 19th April 2022, vol. 712, col. 117.
127 Additionally, s150 OSA requires Ofcom to establish an Advisory Committee on disinformation and misinformation which, under s152(3)(a)-(c), must include persons representing the interests of users and regulated services, and persons with expertise in the prevention and handling of disinformation and misinformation online. Section 152(5) requires the Committee to public a report within the period of 18 months after being established, and after that must publish periodic reports. Thus, at the time of writing, the make-up, role, and influence of the Committee remain to be seen.
128 Law Commission (n 13), [2.38]-[2.39], 24.
129 OSA, s179(2).
130 Law Commission (n 13), [3.19], 79.
131 ibid, [3.55], 90.
132 ibid, [3.44], 86.
133 ibid, [3.43], [3.44], 86.
134 ibid, [3.47], 87.
135 ibid.
136 ibid, [2.38]-[2.39], 24.
137 A similar argument was made by Demos: ibid. [3.27], 81.
138 Coe (n 2) 20–21.
139 See (n 63–65).
140 See (n 102–104).
141 This point was made by English PEN: Law Commission (n 13) [3.25], 81.
142 ibid, [3.45], 86–87.
143 ibid, [3.54], 90; Harmful Online Communications: The Criminal Offences (2020) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 248, [6.45].
144 ibid (Modernising Communications Offences).
145 Law Commission (n 13) [3.53], 89–90.
146 This first shield also requires regulated services to put measures in place to prevent their services being used for illegal activity, for instance.
147 Children will automatically have these settings by default – albeit how this will work in practice, and what, if any, duties this would impose on in-scope services is unclear.
148 OSA, s10(3)(b).
149 ibid, s59(4), (5): Content that is linked to priority or non-designated offences.
150 ibid, s59(4)(b), (5)(c).
151 ibid, s192(5), (6)(a).
152 ibid, s192(6)(b).
153 ibid, s192(2), 192(6)(b).
154 Consequently, Harbinja argues in the report, and has argued previously, for the need to introduce a standard of ‘manifest illegality’ instead of the ‘reasonable grounds to infer’. E Harbinja and N Ni Loideain, Policy Report: Making Digital Streets Safe? Progress on the Online Safety Bill, June 2023, IALS and Aston University.
155 OSA, s71(1), 72(3)(a).
156 ibid, s72(5).
157 ibid, s74(5).
158 See (n 118–123).
159 Bernal, Warts and All (n 15) 127; S Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (Profile Books 2019) 48–50, 217–20.
160 OSA, ss10(8), 12(13), 15(7), 72.
161 ibid, s72(5).
162 ibid, defined in section 56. See also: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Guidance: Fact sheet on enhanced protections for journalism within the Online Safety Bill, 23rd August 2022.
163 OSA, s18.
164 ibid, s56(2)(a)(i), (ii).
165 ibid, (a)-(g).
166 OSA, s56(6)(c).
167 Coe (n 6) 82–83.
168 See Clause 1 (Accuracy): https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/.
169 See Code 1 (Accuracy): https://www.impressorg.com/standards/impress-standards-code/our-standards-code/.
170 For further analysis of this issue, see: P Coe, ‘Press Regulation in the United Kingdom in a Changed Media Ecosystem’ in P Wragg and A Koltay (eds) Global Perspectives on Press Regulation (Hart 2023) 209–34.
171 Lord Justice Leveson, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Report (HC 780, 2012) 50, [2.2].
172 Wragg (n 18) 60–61.
173 ibid.
174 Coe (n 6) 269–70; Independent Media Association, Response to the Online Safety Bill, 28th February 2023.
175 Press Recognition Panel, <https://pressrecognitionpanel.org.uk/why-is-amendment-126-of-clause-50-of-the-online-safety-bill-so-important/>; N Sparkes, Hacked Off analysis: Russell Brand’s Rumble channel may benefit from press loophole in Online Safety Bill, 2nd October 2023: <https://hackinginquiry.org/russell-brands-rumble-channel-may-benefit-from-press-loophole-in-online-safety-bill/> accessed 7th January 2024.
176 For an overview of the system, see: Coe (n 70) 209–34.
177 ibid; Wragg (n 18).
178 Coe (n 2).
179 Coe (n 2) 68–69.
180 See generally: Coe (n 6).
181 See note 18; The Cairncross Review recognised that to increase online advertising revenue, newspapers have encouraged the sensationalisation of news and the prioritisation of low-quality ‘clickbait’ over high-quality, investigative and minority publications: Cairncross (n 27) 42–44.
182 Coe (n 6) 90.
183 Coe (n 2) 70.
184 ibid; Cram (n 16) 133–34.
185 Bernal, The Internet, Warts and All (n 16) 248–50.
186 Cram (n 16) 134.
187 P Coe, ‘Freedom of Speech and the Regulation of Fake News in the United Kingdom: Managing Misinformation and Disinformation, and Protecting Free Speech, in the UK’s Modern Media Ecology’ in O Pollicino (ed) Freedom of Speech and the Regulation of Fake News, Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law (Intersentia 2023) 503–39, 527–28.
188 Ofcom, ‘Making Sense of Media’: <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research> accessed 13 December 2023.
189 Children’s Commissioner, Growing Up Digital: A Report of the Growing Up Digital Taskforce (January 2017) 3.
190 House of Lords Select Committee on Political Polling and Digital Media, Report of Session 2017–19 (HL Paper 106, 17 April 2018) [319].
191 House of Commons, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report (HC 1791, 14 February 2019) [308], 86.
192 See UK government, Department for Education, Guidance Teaching Online Safety in Schools, 12 January 2023.
193 The APPG, convened by media literacy charity The Student View, includes MPs and peers from the Labour, Conservative and Scottish National Parties: <https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/APPG/media-literacy> accessed 14 December 2023.
194 ‘MPs Form Group to Safeguard Children from Fake News’, Society of Editors, 25 November 2020.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Peter Coe
Peter Coe is an Associate Professor in Law at Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham. He is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study, Durham University, a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the School of Law, University of Reading, and an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Information Law and Policy Centre, University of London.