Cyberleagle

In a previous post (The Vibe of the ECHR) I explored ways in which a regulatory policy agenda could acquire the halo effect of association with the European Convention on Human Rights.

A thought experiment: suppose I wanted to transform the European Convention on Human Rights into a vehicle for state regulation of speech, how would I go about it?

“A computer can never be held accountable Therefore a computer must never make a management decision” So went a famous internal IBM training manual in 1979.

A few months ago I wrote about the ambitiously extraterritorial reach of the Law Commission’s proposed reform of the England and Wales law on strict liability contempt (or contempt by publication, as it would be re-named).

An internet jurisdiction retrospective The problem Since the dawn of the internet we have wrestled with the question of how best to reconcile national laws with the inherently cross-border medium of the internet.

Coined in 1740, ‘Britannia!

The Online Safety Act Network (OSAN) recently published a 10-point plan to amend the Online Safety Act.

The transatlantic free speech wars continue to rage.

A Parliamentary petition calling for repeal of the Online Safety Act has reached over 550,000 signatures and is due to be debated on 15 December.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recently published its submission to Ofcom’s consultation on additional safety measures under the Online Safety Act.

At the end of May Ofcom circulated a set of FAQs to the attendees of a three day Online Safety Act Explained event that it ran in February 2025.

A blogpost headed “The Online Safety Act: A First Amendment for the UK” lacks nothing in shock value.

The outcome of Google’s complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Google v Russia cannot be considered a surprise.

Ofcom has published its long-expected consultation on additional measures that it recommends U2U platforms and search engines should implement to fulfil their duties under the Online Safety Act.

The recent decision of the Australian Administrative Review Tribunal in X Corp and Elston v eSafety Commissioner illustrates the complexities that can arise when the law tasks a regulator or platform to adjudge an online post.

As part of a broader campaign targeting knife crime the Home Office has published its consultation response on a new procedure for authorised police officers to issue takedown notices to online platforms (also now to include search engines).

This is my submission to the Ministry of Justice Call for Evidence on computer evidence in criminal proceedings.

Policymakers sometimes comfort themselves that if no-one is completely satisfied, they have probably got it about right.

Proponents of a duty of care for online platforms have long dwelt on the theme of safety by design.

This is sixth and final instalment in a series of reflections on Ofcom’s Illegal Harms consultation under the Online Safety Act 2023.

Assiduous readers of this blog will know of my fondness for working through concrete examples to illustrate how, once they come into force (now likely to be in Spring next year), platform illegal content duties under the UK Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) mi…

This is Part 5 of a series of reflections on Ofcom’s Illegal Harms Consultation under the Online Safety Act (OSA).

Part 4 of a short series of reflections on Ofcom’s Illegal Harms consultation under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA).

Part 3 of a short series of reflections on Ofcom’s Illegal Harms consultation under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA).

This is Part 2 of a short series of reflections on Ofcom's Illegal Harms Consultation under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA).