Free Speech on the Internet

Today in Parliament, I spoke out against a new law that was proposed by the Labour MP Mike Gapes, which would have brought in censorship of the Internet during an election.

My worry was that this would have been a major assault on free speech, and individual liberty.

That is why I forced a vote in Parliament by opposing the law.

The results were:

MPs who supported me, and voted for Freedom of Speech: 86
MPs who voted for Mike Gapes' censorship bill: 30

Watch the full video of my speech HERE.

My full speech follows below:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): Mr Speaker, I have great respect for hon. gentleman. I have no problem with some of his bill, which has the worthy aims of improving electoral registration, and other measures to combat electoral fraud.

It is with regret then, that I must oppose his bill, as I do have serious concerns about his last clause, which seeks to:


“strengthen measures to control negative campaigns by third party groups and websites.”


Effectively the hon. gentleman is calling for regulation of the Internet. He has built a Trojan horse of censorship, under cover of making every vote count fairly.


I believe that his proposal is wrong for two reasons:

1) It could amount to a huge assault on individual freedom of expression, and
2) It is also unenforceable.

As the hon. gentleman said on the Today in Parliament programme last Friday, he objects to so-called attack websites because they can be “very very effective in the modern world”.

I agree that all election materials must be sourced, and that publishers must be clearly identified.

But in his interview with Today in Parliament, the hon. gentleman went further, when he said:

“It is not just attack websites. I think there should be a framework whereby publishing materials about elections, about candidates - either promotion, or negative campaigning - needs to be brought within the normal election law.”

The interviewer put it to him, that:

“You do wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease on this. You might stop people who want legitimately to comment on an election, because they have to go through some massive registration process.”

The hon. gentleman’s reply went precisely to the heart of the problem, when he said: “I am not calling for censorship. I am calling for regulation.”

This is a false argument, because when it comes to free expression, regulation is censorship by another name.

And with free expression, regulation is censorship of the worst kind, because it deters amateur enthusiasts, small neighbourhood groups, and free-thinking individuals.

Any increase in red tape and bureaucracy would leave the battle of ideas to the special interests: the rich, the media Establishment, those with extreme views, and professional groups like trade unions and political parties.

The hon. gentleman justifies his reform by saying that “other election literature is restricted”. But I believe that election literature is too restricted as it is. There are too many rules regarding second and third party endorsements, for example, and the Electoral Commission regulations can be a minefield.

Take the case of Phil Woolas, for example, which the hon. gentleman raised on his interview with BBC Radio 4.

The hon. gentleman said that this case proves the need for “greater regulation” of election materials, especially on the Internet.

But during the Phil Woolas case, I went on national television to oppose his removal by the Election Court, because it was an outrageous attack on Parliamentary democracy.

I accept that the judge acted under the law, but the law in this case is wrong: a sitting MP should be removed by voters, not by unelected judges.

The new recall system will help, and if an MP has libelled his opponents then yes, of course, he should be sued for libel.

But the election of MPs must be up to the voters to decide.

My fear about the Bill, is that it risks almost a throw-back to the 1950s, where interviewers on television programmes had to ask Government Ministers:


“What wonderful work are you doing today?”

The effect of the hon. gentleman’s bill - if successful - would be to produce a 21st century version of this: electioneering on the Internet that is bland and without colour.

We are now in an open society, where social networking and blogging, and communication is of paramount importance.

The citizen is no longer a subject but an autonomous individual.

We regularly get criticised on Twitter and other social media sites - sometimes outrageous or even libellous things are written - but mostly that is part and parcel of politics.

I don’t believe we should bring in a law to stop it, because this is the essence of a free society.

Negative campaigning is - however frustrating - part of free speech, and we must hope that the truth will ultimately shine through, in a marketplace of ideas.

We have to ask, is the criminal justice system the right way of dealing with the problems that the hon. gentleman has identified? Once we interfere with what happens on the Internet, where does this stop?

I say this, because the loss of freedom rarely happens all at once. It is usually incremental. First we restrict free expression on the Internet at election times, then we restrict it altogether.

My second objection is that this is clearly unenforceable, as the hon. gentleman has said himself on BBC Radio 4. Web-postings can be done overseas. Domain names can be registered in different territories. And even if you restrict one individual from commenting, it is like the hydra’s head: another one will pop up in its place.

We all know what Voltaire said, but as a good Tory let me quote Hayek:

“In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have the power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved.”

This is why although I have a great respect for the hon. gentleman, and support some of his bill, I cannot let it pass through the House unopposed.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com