Steerpike Steerpike

Will Nadine be censored under her own law?

Photo by Hannah McKay - WPA Pool/Getty Images

Steerpike’s favourite cabinet minister is at it again. In her vindictive rage to try to avenge Boris Johnson, Nadine Dorries has turned the full force of her rage against Rishi Sunak. She’s accused him of leading a ‘ruthless coup’ against the Prime Minister, being the ‘chatty rat’ behind the lockdown leak, of ‘not working hard’, practicing ‘dark arts’ and, er, wearing an expensive pair of shoes.

Now, the Culture Secretary has even taken to retweeting memes of Sunak mocked up as Brutus, brandishing a knife behind Johnson as Britain’s Caesar. The image predictably sparked a backlash, with fellow Tory MP Simon Hoare sharing a post which said that ‘no MP should be retweeting a post like this… two MPs in recent times have been murdered by extremists.’

Defenders of Dorries will suggest that talk of assassins, knifings and political skulduggery are merely staple parts of Westminster life. Mr S has some sympathy with that argument but how does this robust approach to free speech fit with the legislation that Dorries’ own department is championing?

The legislation is, of course, the Department for Culture’s Online Safety Bill. Section 54 of the bill creates a category of speech that is legal but ‘harmful to adults’; Section 6 establishes a Duty of Care for ‘Cat 1’ social media platforms and requires them to assess and act on this new legal category of censored speech. Moreover while Dorries might see herself as a champion of free speech, her successors may not be: this Bill would give them powers to further restrict what can and can’t be posted on aforementioned sites.

In such circumstances, Mr S wonders whether images of brandished knives and backstabbing might become verboten as ‘legal but harmful.’ And, if not that tweet, what about the time that Dorries told a Sunday Mirror journalist: ‘I will nail your balls to the floor… using your own front teeth.’ Again, is such a post ‘legal but harmful’? Dorries would argue not but others would likely disagree.

Let’s hope this episode has provided an overdue reminder to the Culture Secretary of the necessities of free speech.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in