Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Some 560 party members responded, and we’re publishing the full results. (Apologies for the delay in reporting this one, by the way: slipped through the net.)
68% Lib Dem members oppose Draft Communications Data Bill
LDV asked: The Draft Communications Data Bill – which proposes to extend the powers of law enforcement agencies and others to have access to communications data (such as Skype and instant-messaging services) – was announced in the Queen’s Speech. Its proponents say it is a vital Bill which ensures security measures keep pace with technological change. Its critics say it is an unwarranted privacy intrusion with no proven security benefits. From what you have seen and read, do you support or oppose the Bill as it is currently set out?
- 15% – Support the Draft Communications Data Bill
- 68% – Oppose the Draft Communications Data Bill
- 16% – Don’t know / No opinion
Ever since it was first mooted this Bill has been a major bone of contention within the Lib Dems, with Cambridge MP Julian Huppert leading the charge against it as it stands. As our survey shows, a large majority of party members — more than two-thirds — are opposed to the Bill. Our MPs will have their work cut out to amend it in a way that turns that figure around.
Section Five: 45% back reform, 36% repeal
LDV asked: Currently Section Five of the Public Order Act makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place. This year’s Lib Dem spring conference adopted a policy of repeal of Section Five as a limit on free speech. There is currently a campaign, however, simply to remove the word ‘insulting’ from the Section. Other people think Section Five should be kept. With which position do you most agree?
- 36% – Section Five should be repealed in its entirety
- 45% – The word ‘insulting’ should be deleted from Section Five
- 10% – Section Five should not be repealed
- 9% – Don’t know / No opinion
A plurality of the members we surveyed therefore back the proposal simply to remove the word ‘insulting’ from Section Five, though just over a third back the policy the party’s adopted policy.
80% back free speech even if it’s offensive or insulting
LDV then asked: Which of the following statements best reflects your view?
- 80% – As long as they are not violent, aggressive or threatening, in a free society people should be able to use words that other people might find offensive or insulting
- 12% – It is not acceptable for people to insult or offend other people in public, and it is right that there should be laws against it
- 4% – Neither
- 3% – Don’t know / No opinion
72% back opt-in internet filtering over opt-out
Finally LDV asked: The government are currently consulting with Internet Service Providers on whether they should offer a service that filters internet sites and automatically blocks pornographic sites from people’s home internet service. Some people think that customers should have to choose to have their internet service filtered (an opt-in service), other people think that internet services should all be filtered unless customers ask for their service to be unfiltered (an opt-out service). Do you think internet filters should be opt-in or opt-out?
- 72% – Opt-in (someone’s internet service should only be filtered if they ask for it)
- 14% – Opt-out (people’s internet service should be filtered unless they ask for it not to be)
- 10% – Neither
- 3% – Don’t know / No opinion
What all the responses to the surveys show, unsurprisingly, is the strongly personal liberal streak within the party, with members backing free speech, and opposed to new laws infringing on personal freedom. Only in the question on Section Five is there a more nuanced view, with a plurality opposed to free speech being extended to include threatening or abusive language in a public place.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sausage company launches free rural bus service
Friends of Balgay event on Saturday! #dundeewestend
The "Just War" tradition
Our kids need a lorra, lorra, larffs!!
Joseph Bourke
Matthew Radmore
Roland
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
5 Comments
Fascinating that the most conclusive result here is that 82% of Lib Dems want either opt-in filtering of internet porn, or no filtering at all even for those who want it.
Since porn would continue to be freely available under an opt-out system (you’d just have to ask for the filter to be switched off), this doesn’t strike me as having much to do with personal liberty. It is very easy to think of reasons why porn users might prefer an opt-in system, but surely it’s stretching credulity a bit to suggest that civil liberties is one of them.
Stuart: the embarrassment of an ISP’s customer having to call up to ask to ‘switch the porn on’ aside, the primary objections to filtering by default are:
a) No content filter has ever been designed which doesn’t also block large amounts of clean content, which hinders internet use. If the filter is at the ISP level then users can’t even whitelist pages they know they need to access.
b) If you establish a precedent for the state mandating that the internet is filtered by default, you encourage influential groups to try and argue for additional content to be filtered: ‘defamatory’ speech, ‘dangerous’ ideas, ‘infringing’ content, without having to go through the hassle of a judicial procedure.
(a) is just annoying, (b) is certainly a civil liberties issue.
There are plenty of filters that individual users can install and customise on their own systems without inconveniencing the wider world.
Finally, would you be able to accurately and consistently define pornography? It would be a first!
Ed:
a) Perhaps. I know from experience that the first time I switched on Kaspersky’s parental controls on our home PCs, it wouldn’t let my wife use the Marks and Spencer website. Which amused me, but not her. I would certainly hope that filtering technology might have improved a little since then.
b) The precedent has already been set though. We already have a system for filtering out paedophile websites. The courts can order other illegal sites to be filtered. At least with the proposed porn filter, users are free to have it switched off. A filter which is voluntary (either opt-in or opt-out) still doesn’t strike me as a civil liberties issue, it’s simply a minor service delivery arrangement.
Blocking specific sites by court order is one thing. Blocking content by some form of definition is very different.
Tony: The blocking is not done only by court orders, there is a voluntary system (“Cleanfeed”) which filters out many sites.
Also, there is a big difference between “blocking” and the kind of voluntary filtering being talked about.