Controversial comments by leading politicians, including the Prime Minister, were removed by Facebook after civil liberty campaign group Big Brother Watch posted them from dummy accounts to test Facebook’s content policies.

Boris Johnson’s 2018 comment that Muslim women wearing burkas look “like letter boxes” was removed by Facebook for breaching its policies on “harassment and bullying”, when posted by a dummy account.

A comment made in 2013 by now Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, who is the minister leading on the Online Safety Bill – “Be seen within a mile of my daughters and I will nail your balls to the floor” – was also removed by the platform for breaching its “Community Standards on violence and incitement”.

Whilst such language could be construed as a threat of violence in some contexts, the comment was posted from a dummy account to Facebook without context and without being directed towards any particular individual.

Dorries recently defended her comment, telling the DCMS Committee she “would expect any mother” to say the same in those circumstances, and the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill that it was “totally appropriate”. (‘said it was total appropriate’?) 

Likewise, Labour Deputy Leader Angela Rayner’s comment, “shoot your terrorists and ask questions second” made in February this year was removed from Facebook when posted by a dummy account, for breaching the violence and incitement policy.

Facebook upheld the removal of Rayner’s comments after the dummy account appealed the decision.

Big Brother Watch’s findings come days before the expected publication of the Online Safety Bill. It is thought that the revised Bill could be published next week, following publication of a draft Bill last year.

The most contentious powers in the draft Bill would create a new category of regulated speech online termed “legal but harmful”. Among a suite of new speech regulations, Ofcom would be tasked with ensuring platforms’ “terms of service are applied consistently”.

However, Big Brother Watch argues that these terms of service are far more restrictive than domestic speech laws, and as such the Bill would “replace Britain’s carefully balanced right to free speech with the changing, censorious terms and conditions of foreign companies”.

Recommended

• Leader Insights | Building robust security culture with Lianne Potter
• What are the new changes to the Online Safety Bill?
• Nearly 90% of cyberattacks are targeting Russia or Ukraine

In a statement, Mark Johnson, Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch, said: “These comments by high profile politicians are unpleasant and have been rightly criticised, including by ourselves.

“However, unpleasantness alone is not a legitimate basis for censorship. This experiment clearly demonstrates that such controversial yet lawful speech is destined for unprecedented censorship under the Online Safety Bill.

“The Government should be adopting a rule of law approach to online speech and reining in, not empowering, Big Tech speech police. But by compelling platforms to target lawful speech which is deemed to be ‘harmful’, the Government will make social media censorship state-backed.

“Social media companies are already doing serious damage to free speech in the UK. The Government’s new Bill is a Censor’s Charter that would make this situation worse and threatens to cause a free speech crisis in this country.

“The Online Safety Bill would replace Britain’s carefully balanced right to free speech with the changing, censorious terms and conditions of foreign companies. The Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary should take stock of Facebook removing their own statements and drop powers to target so-called ‘legal but harmful’ speech from the Bill.”

Get the latest news from DIGIT direct to your inbox

Our newsletter covers the latest technology and IT news from Scotland and beyond, as well as in-depth features and exclusive interviews with leading figures and rising stars.

To subscribe, click here.