As a politician, I hear constant reports of the hurt that nameless hatred can inflict.
Freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all. Yet that is what the online world has become, a space where harm hides behind anonymity and accountability is optional. We would never accept this in our streets, our schools or our workplaces. So why do we tolerate it online?
The online world is not a parallel universe. It shapes our relationships, our children’s lives, our politics and our democracy. Yet it remains the only place where we still seriously argue that rules are an attack on freedom, rather than a basic condition of safety.
Much commentary on proposed online safety legislation misses this fundamental point. The objective is not to silence people or to strip citizens of their right to express unpopular views. The objective is to make the digital “public square” safer, fairer and more accountable.
Critics frame the debate as a choice between anonymity and freedom. That is a false choice. We accept limits on behaviour in every other sphere of life without calling it censorship. We have defamation law, public order law and child protection law, not because we want to control speech, but because unregulated behaviour causes real harm.
Continue @ Indo.
No comments