Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Contested interpretation of the threshold for treating content as illegal
This is the Online Safety Act Network's proposed approach to assessing illegal content under the UK's civil regulatory regime. In February 2024 it argued for contextual interpretation and a civil balance-of-probabilities approach, with Lorna Woods separately explaining the argument in public commentary.
The network's examples distinguished cyberflashing from difficulties around suicide offences; they were offence-specific reasoning, rather than a general rule against speech lacking social benefit. Ofcom's December 2024 decision declined the proposed interpretive departure. It retained reasonable grounds to infer all necessary offence elements, using context and considering expression costs, while agreeing that criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt was not the applicable test.
Ofcom → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
2024-12-16 – 2024-12-16
Volume3 2.19/fn11 identifies OSAN25-26;2.20-21 retains reasonable grounds to infer all necessary offence elements and context-sensitive judgment, citing expression costs. It agrees criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt is not the test; this is no court judgment.
Lorna Woods → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
2024-02-15 – 2024-02-15
Named article15February2024 under Burden of Proof in a Civil Regime; intellectual contribution, not regulatory appointment or sole authorship of network response.
OSAN February2024 illegal-harms response → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
PDF25-26: offense-sensitive argument, including contrasting examples. Do not generalize to a ban on all speech without benefit.
OSAN February2024 illegal-harms response → proposed contextual civil interpretation → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
PDF25-26: offense-sensitive argument, including contrasting examples. Do not generalize to a ban on all speech without benefit.
Lorna Woods → publicly argued contextual civil approach → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
2024-02-15 – 2024-02-15
Named article15February2024 under Burden of Proof in a Civil Regime; intellectual contribution, not regulatory appointment or sole authorship of network response.
Ofcom → declined proposed interpretive departure → Proposed contextual civil-inference approach
2024-12-16 – 2024-12-16
Volume3 2.19/fn11 identifies OSAN25-26;2.20-21 retains reasonable grounds to infer all necessary offence elements and context-sensitive judgment, citing expression costs. It agrees criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt is not the test; this is no court judgment.