Concerns have been made about 'David's Law,' which would restrict freedom of expression and internet anonymity in the United Kingdom.

Richard Townsend/Wikimedia (CC-BY-SA) 

Those who oppose the bill say it's a blatant attempt to curtail free expression.

A conservative law has been proposed in response to David Amess' murder. It would impose further restrictions and penalties on social media use that is anonymous or "harmful," as defined in the Online Safety Bill.

He was stabbed to death last week in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, while meeting with constituents. The event has been classified as a terrorist incident by the authorities, although no link has been established to social media as of yet.

Online safety legislation was leaked in May and instantly met with criticism for its potential to curtail free speech. If this bill passes, internet platforms would have a "duty of care," and they will be required to remove a wide range of information, even those which the government has considered to be legal but "damaging."

Even before he passed away, Amess had expressed worry about the internet threats and abuse that female MPs faced. According to Mark Francois, a close friend, mentor, and fellow Conservative MP,

In an attempt to link anonymous criticism and abuse on social media to the man's murder, Francois is using this claimed desire to push forward the Online Harms Bill with "David's Law" and further promote the Online Harms Bill legislation.

If we want to make sure our colleague's death wasn't in vain, Francois told the Guardian, "we jointly all pick up the baton, regardless of our party, and take the impending Online Harms Bill and toughen it up significantly." In other words, although public figures must be accessible to valid criticism, they cannot be maligned or their families subject to horrific abuse from those who hide behind a veil of anonymity with the connivance of social media corporations for profit. That's what David's bill would accomplish."

Amess' murder appears to have had nothing to do with the supposed vilification of Tories on social media, which Conservative party members have been presenting as a significant problem for some time now.

Most people on both sides of the aisle believe that "David's Law" is merely a pretext to weaponize Amess' death and advance legislation that anti-censorship watchdogs have already dubbed "kafkaesque," "entrenchment of surveillance capitalism," and a grave threat to freedom of speech in the United States.

In 2016, an alt-right white supremacist assassin murdered Labour MP Jo Cox because she opposed Brexit. According to prosecutors, her death was caused in part by the "febrile climate," which included aggressive statements posted online against people who opposed it.

However, despite the fact that over 50,000 tweets celebrated her death as a "traitor," there was no movement to prohibit or restrict "vilification" of political leaders at the time on social media or otherwise.

To put it another way, Prime Minister Theresa May's appeal that politicians refrain from using terms like "traitor," "betrayal," and "surrender" to characterize those opposed to Brexit in order to prevent further escalating an already volatile situation was received with "such nonsense."

x

Many people have taken exception to the fact that the police did nothing when Cox was murdered and online animosity was a role, but they have jumped to conclusions now that there is no evidence social media was a component.

There's also a lot of concern that this measure won't simply deal with harassment in the workplace; it may also be used to stifle legitimate protests and criticism of the government.

A lot of the criticism was directed at planned changes to the Official Secrets Act that would make it illegal for journalists to leak information that "embarrasses" the government or publish leaked documents that do so, because that would equate their acts with espionage by foreign governments.

Freedom of expression advocates worry that banning anonymous social media accounts under "David's Law" will primarily hurt society's most marginalized people.

It's likely that marginalized individuals who want to avoid doxing and other forms of online harassment, as well as those who are escaping domestic abuse and stalking, will have little choice but to leave social media if they don't want to risk violence or losing their jobs as a result.

x