Vague 'psychological harm' proposals criticised by free speech groups

Speech or writing that results in “psychological harm” could be criminalised under the government’s online safety plans, it has emerged, prompting free speech concerns.

On Monday, it was announced that the Department for Culture Media and Sport, responsible for the proposals, had accepted recommendations from the Law Commission to create an offence on content resulting in “likely psychological harm to a likely audience”.

The new definition replaces previous wording in the draft proposals on “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, significantly widening the purview of the offence.

Responding to the news, critics warned the offence could be weaponised by people seeking to close down debate. Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at think tank the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“The notion that certain individuals or groups must be protected from emotionally distressing speech comes straight from ‘cancel culture’ at universities. By putting the onus on the offence felt – or likely to be felt – by the listener, it creates a heckler’s veto. It encourages people to claim distress to censor their critics.”

He added: “The Law Commission has suggested that the psychological harm will have to be ‘intended’ and not in the ‘public interest’. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to create an offence that could capture genuine political commentary, even if it exempts it away.

“More police investigations and criminal proceedings, even if they end in failure, could discourage people from making controversial remarks in the first place. There would be a serious risk that a court sets a low threshold for intention and a high threshold for public interest.”

“Free speech is meant to make people feel uncomfortable. It’s never welcome to hear an idea that questions your beliefs or identity. But for society to progress, we must challenge long-held beliefs. Nothing should be sacred”, he said.

A spokesman for CARE said:

“The vague and ambiguous nature of these proposed offences is worrying and poses a risk to free expression – especially for Christians and other citizens who may wish to share views that are counter-cultural or unpopular in the current political context.

“Threatening or abusive language should be punished if it appears in the online world, just as it is offline. Nobody disputes this. However, that which is subjectively deemed to be ‘distressing’ or ‘offensive’ should not be a matter for the criminal law.

“We urge Ministers to rethink this particular aspect of the online safety regime, which can be a real force for good if it is legislated for in a focussed and proportionate way.”