Mixed feelings on this as with any new criminal speech laws. Matter of life or death if fake anti-vaccine stories are allowed to spread. Also a grey area between obviously fake and strongly skeptical - I am dubious of police’s capability of identifying it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54947661

Social media companies seem to have stepped up recently (to an extent) on banning/flagging fake Covid stories. Given the huge risks of involving the police, who tend to be a blunt instrument when it comes to social media, is the benefit worth it?

Also, will high-profile prosecutions of anti-vaccination individuals bring more attention to their views? And (usual free speech argument) will driving them off mainstream social media move the conversation into private messaging apps which can’t be regulated?

As with all things Covid and civil liberties, there is a risk that the obvious urgency + risk of virus overwhelms caution over jettisoning key rights. And once you do that, it’s hard to get them back. See eg govt approach to lockdowns which has been almost entirely top down

Also interesting Keir Starmer is proposing. First time I met him was when he was consulting as DPP on social media prosecution guidance. He gets the tensions, but I wonder whether his instinct is the police must be involved, whereas I’m not sure they must or to be fair want to be

For people responding: let the debate be had, I don’t agree with that. I think social media companies should energetically flag and ban obvious disinformation on vaccines as it poses a danger to public health. But I am less sure about prosecuting

Have deleted one tweet in the thread as it was focussed at individuals being prosecuted which as people rightly pointed out is not the proposal. Just social media companies