How to make the internet safer without overloading it with government free‑speech brakes
Last year, death threats made against Piers Morgan and his family, and the swift police response that followed, brought the issue of online abuse back into sharp focus. That case reminds us of the very real dangers that come with unchecked online behaviour. It also prompts a clear question: who should police the Internet, and where should we draw the line between free speech and unlawful abuse?
One world, one set of rules
For years, people have spoken as if there are two separate universes: the offline world, where laws are clear and enforced by the police, and the online world, where anything goes. This is a dangerous illusion. In reality, there is only one world and one reality. Going online does not mean travelling to a different planet. It is the same planet we are all on, but because different rules seem to apply, people get the illusion that they live in a parallel universe. If I walk over to my neighbour and shout abuse at them, I could be committing a public order offence.
Yet if I do pretty much the same via Twitter or YouTube or any other social media, many assume it is somehow different. You may argue that neither should be a criminal offence, and I tend to agree, but we must decide: either verbal abuse is a crime or it is not. Personally, I would prefer it was not a crime at all, but I do not make the rules. In any event, either we change the law one way or another or we enforce it both ways. The truth is that the law applies equally and, in a democracy, should be enforced by the same people, namely the police. I will return to this point later, but whether the insult is delivered face-to-face or through a screen, the principle remains the same.
Why tech firms should not police speech
The problem is not the absence of law but the absence of enforcement. Online, we have allowed social media companies to become the crime scene, the police, the prosecutor and the judge. They decide what stays and what goes, with little transparency or accountability. This is not a sustainable solution. It leads to discrimination, the politicisation of speech, and the privatisation of policing and legal principles without accountability or transparency.
In practice, one individual can end up deciding whether I may tweet or what I may or may not say, and when that person is replaced, their successor may take a completely opposite approach. Speech is effectively dictated by whoever owns the platform, whether it is Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other tech owner.
What the Online Safety Act gets wrong
In a democracy, the responsibility for creating and enforcing laws rests with the government and the police, not with private companies. Social media firms are not elected, they are not accountable to the public, and they do not operate with the transparency required of public institutions.
Government regulation should not necessarily mean silencing robust debate. People must remain free to criticise, argue, and even offend, provided they do not cross into threats or targeted harassment.
Some of the most worrying aspects of the new Online Safety Act reflect precisely this concern. It effectively outsources the regulation of speech to private companies, giving them powers to decide what can or cannot be said online. This risks discrimination, politicisation of speech, and the privatisation of law enforcement without democratic accountability.
One individual at the head of a tech company may end up deciding what speech is permitted, and when that leadership changes, the approach to speech can change completely. This creates uncertainty and inconsistency, and undermines the principle that in a democracy, the rules on speech and behaviour should be made and enforced by institutions accountable to the people, not by private interests.
Keep free speech, stop online harassment
Transparency is crucial. If rules are set by Parliament and enforced by the police, the public can influence those rules through the democratic process. If, however, rules are left to private companies like Facebook or Google, the public has no real say. I am less concerned with what specific speech is permitted and more concerned with who makes that decision. It should be us, the people, through our representatives in Parliament. What matters most is consistency, fairness, and preventing discrimination in how the law is applied.
Ordinary victims need equal protection
The case of Piers Morgan highlights the issue, but so does the plight of tens of thousands of ordinary people who are threatened, harassed, and abused online every week. In too many of those cases, the police show little interest, let alone investigate. Instead, they tell victims that it is a matter for the platform, for Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube and advise them simply to come off social media, as if that would solve the problem. It seems Piers Morgan was not told that.
These are the people who most need the protection of the law. They cannot afford private security or expensive lawyers to identify their abusers. My position is not to call for more laws, but for equality in the law.
The law should be clear, it should apply to everyone equally, and it should be enforced in a transparent way. Only then can we achieve certainty and fairness, instead of leaving people at the mercy of arbitrary corporate decisions.
A simple way to unmask abusers
One practical step that could reduce abuse dramatically is to make it easier to trace anonymous offenders. Today, many victims must hire a lawyer and go through long procedures just to find out who runs an abusive account. A simple route would let a victim upload screenshots, links, and dates to an independent online decisions body made up of members of the public, practising lawyers, and representatives of the major social media platforms. The body would review the evidence against clear legal tests, such as a credible threat or repeated harassment. Where the threshold is met, the body would order the platform to verify the account holder’s identity and disclose it to the body. The body would then compile a full evidence pack and pass it to the police and, where appropriate, to the victim’s solicitor. This single change could cut online abuse by as much as ninety per cent because most online harassers act only while they believe their identity will remain hidden.
This approach does not remove anonymity. People may keep pseudonyms for ordinary use, whistleblowing, or sensitive speech. It only removes the shield when someone commits a criminal act.
How the process would work
Here is how this would help you in real life. You keep a record of what happened by saving screenshots, copying the web address, and noting the time. You submit the report to the independent online decisions body and receive a reference number. The body immediately issues a data preservation notice to the relevant platform and, if needed, to your internet service provider.
You then make a police report and add the crime reference to your case. The body reviews the case against the legal tests. If the behaviour meets the threshold, the body orders the platform to verify and disclose the account holder’s identity to the body. The body then hands the police a complete, standardised evidence pack, including the identity of the perpetrator and the preserved logs, so the police can act quickly. If you have a solicitor, the same pack is shared so that proper legal steps can follow. You do not need to pay large sums or chase unhelpful contact points. The process is short, consistent, and fair.
Protect yourself now from online harassment
Until that process is in place, you can still protect yourself. Keep clear evidence, make a police report, request a data preservation notice from the platform, and if needed ask a solicitor to seek a court disclosure order so you can identify the abuser. Move quickly because platforms delete or anonymise logs after set periods.
Step by step to a safer Internet
We need to sort the internet out step by step, not with ever more rules but with equal, clear, and transparent enforcement. When offenders know they can be identified, most will stop.
When victims know there is a simple route to justice, more will come forward. Imagine how this could help ordinary people: instead of feeling helpless, they would know there is a clear, simple step to take to identify and challenge their abuser. It would remove the need for expensive lawyers and make protection of the law accessible to everyone, not just to those with resources. Sorting out the Internet must be done step by step, and this would be a powerful first step towards fairness and safety online.
Bringing the rule of law online
The threats made against Piers Morgan are not an isolated incident. They reflect a much wider problem that affects thousands of ordinary people every day. The solution is not to rely on tech companies to act as police, judge, and jury, but to bring the Internet under the same rule of law that governs the offline world.
We must protect free speech, but we must also protect people from harassment and threats. That balance will only be achieved if the government takes back responsibility for regulating online behaviour, leaving the police to enforce the law with clarity and fairness.
Until then, the internet will remain a place where abusers hide behind screens, victims struggle to find justice, and social media giants make decisions in the shadows. It is time to bring the rule of law online.
What to speak to Yair and his team? Call 0800 612 7211 or email us here.