Wikipedia loses High Court challenge against UK Government
They argued that compliance with the new law would mean Wikipedia would have to impose verification on people who did not want it or limit the amount of monthly UK users.
But in a judgment on Monday, Mr Justice Johnson rejected those claims, saying there may be ways to work within the law 'without causing undue damage to Wikipedia's operations'.
The Online Safety Act has provisions aimed at reducing the spread of harmful content.
Part of the regulations classify some sites as category one, which is defined by the number of monthly users a site has as well as the systems through which information is shared.
Rupert Paines, for WMF, told a previous hearing that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who were defending the claim, had made the regulations too broad.
He said that if Wikipedia is to be classified as category one, and verification is to become mandatory for all users, it would make articles 'gibberish' because content from non-verified users would be filtered out.
The regulations were more designed for 'major, profit-making technology companies' such as Facebook, X and Instagram, he argued, while imposing verification on Wikipedia users would be a breach of their human rights.
Cecilia Ivimy KC, for the Government, said ministers reviewed Ofcom guidance and considered specifically whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations and rejected that.
She said they decided that Wikipedia 'is in principle an appropriate service on which to impose category one duties' and how ministers arrived at that choice was not 'without reasonable foundation nor irrational'.
Rejecting WMF and BLN's claims, Mr Justice Johnson said his decision 'does not give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations'.
Doing so would mean the Government would have to justify the imposition as proportionate, he added.
The judge also said that the decision to make Wikipedia a category one service now lies with Ofcom.
If that happens, it may open a possible avenue for further legal action.
Mr Justice Johnson said: 'Ofcom's decision as to which services fall within category one is a public law decision which is potentially amenable to the court's review on grounds of public law error.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC
A lawyer representing the online message board 4chan says it won't pay a proposed fine by the UK's media regulator as it enforces the Online Safety to Preston Byrne, managing partner of law firm Byrne & Storm, Ofcom has provisionally decided to impose a £20,000 fine "with daily penalties thereafter" for as long as the site fails to comply with its request."Ofcom's notices create no legal obligations in the United States," he told the BBC, adding he believed the regulator's investigation was part of an "illegal campaign of harassment" against US tech has declined to comment while its investigation continues. "4chan has broken no laws in the United States - my client will not pay any penalty," Mr Byrne began investigating 4chan over whether it was complying with its obligations under the UK's Online Safety in August, it said it had issued 4chan with "a provisional notice of contravention" for failing to comply with two requests for said its investigation would examine whether the message board was complying with the act, including requirements to protect its users from illegal content.4chan has often been at the heart of online controversies in its 22 years, including misogynistic campaigns and conspiracy are anonymous, which can often lead to extreme content being posted. 'First Amendment rights' In a statement posted on X, law firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law said 4chan was a US company incorporated in the US, and therefore protected against the UK law."American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email," they wrote."Under settled principles of US law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes. "If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in US federal court to confirm these principles."They said authorities in the US had been "briefed" on their response to Ofcom's statement concludes by calling on the Trump administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers to protect American businesses from "extraterritorial censorship mandates".Ofcom has previously said the Online Safety Act only requires services to take action to protect users based in the UK. UK backs down Some American politicians - particularly the Trump administration, its allies and officials - have pushed back against what they regard as overreach in the regulation of US tech firms by the UK and EU. A perceived impact of the Online Safety Act on free speech has been a particular concern, but other laws have also been the source of 19 August, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the UK had withdrawn its controversial demand for a "backdoor" in an Apple data protection system - saying she worked with the President and Vice President to get the UK to abandon its days later, US Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew Ferguson warned big tech firms they could be violating US law if they weakened privacy and data security requirements by complying with international laws such as the Online Safety Act."Foreign governments seeking to limit free expression or weaken data security in the United States might count on the fact that companies have an incentive to simplify their operations and legal compliance measures by applying uniform policies across jurisdictions," he 4chan does successfully fight the fine in the US courts, Ofcom may have other options."Enforcing against an offshore provider is tricky," Emma Drake, partner of online safety and privacy at law firm Bird and Bird, told the BBC. "Ofcom can instead ask a court to order other services to disrupt a provider's UK business, such as requiring a service's removal from search results or blocking of UK payments."If Ofcom doesn't think this will be enough to prevent significant harm, it can even ask that ISPs be ordered to block UK access." Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.
Spectator
a day ago
- Spectator
Dirty tricks have gone too far
Last week, John Power reported on Labour's alleged 'dark arts' strategy: a cynical ploy to damage Nigel Farage and his allies not through debate, but through reputational sabotage. As a target of such smears for many years, I was not hugely surprised to see my name mentioned in the piece. I can attest to the venom of the attacks on Reform – in stark contrast to the 'kinder, gentler politics' once promised from Labour. We should expect robust debate where ideas clash, but instead what we often encounter is a reliance on smears and innuendo. In this week's Spectator, James Heale notes that my lawyers have written to Labour. Downing Street sources have reportedly denied the existence of any new 'attack team' in No. 10 with the remit of challenging Reform. But key questions remain unanswered. In recent weeks, anonymous online accounts and attack blogs have engaged in a sophisticated and targeted disinformation campaign against me. Following the allegations in The Spectator last week, some of these soon vanished. Who was behind them? Where did the money come from to fund various X accounts? And what, exactly, are the limits of Labour's 'opposition research' – better known as the 'dark arts'? The emergence and subsequent disappearance of these accounts come just as Labour ramped up its attacks on Reform UK. Over the weekend, Nigel Farage has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of slime from the Labour party's official X account, stating that he would 'put women and girls at risk' because of his position against the Online Safety Act. Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, previously suggested that Farage was on the side of Jimmy Savile. Just how low is Labour prepared to go? My association with Nigel Farage, exacerbated by my family's financial support of Reform UK, has painted a bullseye on my back – and theirs. The assaults are manifold: in 2016, at the Republican National Convention supporting Donald Trump, I was arrested on allegations of a money-laundering conspiracy from my finance days, when I was 20. The tabloids had a field day, transforming it into a sensational saga of intrigue and excess prompting scurrilous claims of Russian interference. There were farcical allegations of illicit political financing in Montenegro, where I have lived for years, and lurid tales of investigations and arrests, along with whispers of shadowy business dealings with gangsters and despots. These tales disintegrate under scrutiny – but they were never intended to be proven. They are designed to depict me as a Bond-esque rogue. What's changed is how these attacks are amplified. Anonymous social media accounts use generative AI tools like ChatGPT and X's Grok to spread misinformation. By feeding these models with attack blogs and unreliable sources – often of their own creation – they generate misleading responses, auto-translate them, and inject them into the feeds of British journalists. This manipulation plays on well-known vulnerabilities of large language models, which can reflect the assumptions of their prompts and dream up plausible-sounding falsehoods. It is digital defamation at scale. The personal toll is profound. They imperil my petition for a US presidential pardon, following my 2017 plea deal, and have necessitated a 24-hour security team and an army of libel lawyers and investigators amid intimidation that endangers my family's safety and privacy. At the heart of this campaign lies a concerted effort to discredit me and Geostrategy, my global polling and strategy consultancy. Critics brand it a 'shady' vehicle for 'dark money', claims which are not just inaccurate, but malicious. Our polls, which align with other respected outfits, showing, for instance, majority US support for a free Ukraine, are conducted to the highest standards, belying claims of pro-Russia bias. Yet activist groups, colluding with the press, push such narratives without evidence. This approach, reminiscent of efforts against figures such as Trump, risks undermining liberal democracy by failing to accommodate dissenting voices within the system, potentially leading to greater instability. If we aim to restore faith in our institutions, we must return politics to its proper form: a competition of visions and ideas, rather than a battle of character assassination. Our democracy deserves civility, integrity and the courage to engage in open debate.
New Statesman
2 days ago
- New Statesman
Morgan McSweeney unleashes his Farage strategy
Photo by Henry Nicholls/AFP By the way, Britain has the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. We need to build houses, laboratories, data centres and transport – and we have the most expensive energy costs in the developed world. So, clearly, there is a lot of work to be done on the government's objective of 'abundant clean energy'. There is also a lot of work outstanding on all the other four of Keir Starmer's well-chosen 'missions' and all three of his 'foundations'. Those were, to repeat, economic stability, secure borders, national security, kickstarting growth, future-proofing the NHS, smashing the class ceiling, and making the streets safe. Instead, we are still talking about the Online Safety Act. The Labour party is digging its heels in, and is apparently now shaping its entire cyber-strategy around the legislation. The party has released a new advert accusing Nigel Farage, who has criticised the act, of supporting Andrew Tate. The ad shows a picture of the two men together, originally posted by Tate in 2019, and reads 'Nigel Farage says Andrew Tate is an 'important voice' for men. Andrew Tate said women should 'bear responsibility' for being sexually assaulted.' The party is claiming, in effect, that Farage's approach to online safety will leave young boys open to radicalisation. Not long before, champions of the Act had said Farage's opposition put him on the side of Jimmy Savile. Defending the legislation on Sky News, Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, said 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Kyle later doubled down on X, posting 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators.' The Tate line may not seem much of a change from the Savile one – it's hard to choose between two such squalid figures. But Labour appears to be pleased with it. The Sunday Times's front page had the details of the ad before it went out. Credit was given to the in-house team at Labour HQ, and an allusion made to a new, macho-sounding 'attack team', designed to undermine Farage and headed by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. Speaking to the Sunday Times, a senior Labour source proudly said: 'We'll be looking to continue taking the fight to Farage in this area. He's not thought through his approach when it comes to online safety and we'll continue to expose it.' It is hard to know if Labour insiders really believe this about Nigel Farage – if a cack-handed analysis of Tate's popularity really amounts to support for his public statements. It is hard to know if Labour therefore also believe the 525,000 of their citizens who have signed a 'Repeal the Online Safety Act' petition are clamouring to hear more from Andrew Tate – or are 'on the side of predators'. It was similarly hard to know if the party really believed Rishi Sunak did not think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison, as an ad claimed in 2023. But the Online Safety Act seems a very strange law to make this stand around. For one thing, it was a Sunak policy, receiving Royal Assent on 26 October 2023. For another, it is unenforceable, since anyone can dodge the restrictions by downloading a VPN. (It has been reported that children's exposure to pornography has gone up since the law was passed.) And lastly, and again, it serves none of the government's main aims. Perhaps sharper eyes would discern wisdom in the move. After all, Morgan McSweeney is praised for his close sense of popular opinion, and for delivering the huge majority that the government still retains. (Though, if his celebrated ruthlessness forced Corbyn's expulsion, he may be remembered for undoing Labour, not saving it.) There is not such a libertarian streak in Britain as there is in, say, America. And, if it needs pointing out, everyone cares about preventing sexual abuse. If half a million people have declared their opposition to the Act, there may be many more quietly in favour. Labour's resolution may turn out to be prudent. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe There are also seedier explanations to be heard. It is a fairly developed rumour in Westminster, and even more so in the technology sector, that Peter Kyle wants Bridget Phillipson's education brief. If closing off dark parts of the internet is popular with anyone, it is popular with nervous parents. Kyle has more background in education than technology, and was briefly shadow minister for schools in 2021. However well advised, Labour is set on raising the stakes. They are telling voters that opposing the bill amounts to supporting predators. And they are taking measures to escalate awareness of the legislation, associating it directly with the Labour party. The gauntlet seems to be 'if you don't like it, don't vote for us'. And, for better or worse, they are shouting it from the rafters. [See also: Sally Rooney is the conscience of a generation] Related
