It seems that this is likely to take some time and it is unlikely that the Government’s response will be published until well into the Autumn. In the meantime, a number of individuals and organisations have published their responses and we thought it would be useful to readers to list some of those which have been made publicly available.
We draw readers’ attention, in particular, to the following responses
Responses from NGOs
- The Response of Privacy International [pdf]
- The Response by freedom of expression NGO, Article 19. [pdf]
- The Index on Censorship response [pdf]
- Summary response from the Carnegie UK Trust
- Open Rights Group policy responses.
- UK Safer Internet Centre response [pdf]
- English PEN and Scottish PEN joint response [pdf]
- Electronic Frontier Foundation and New America’s Open Technology Institute Response
- Society for Computers and Law response
- Internet Watch Foundation responds to Online Harms White Paper: Let’s do the right thing online for victims of child sexual abuse
Media industry bodies
- The News Media Association Response [pdf]
- The Society of Editors (the full response does not appear to have been published)
From bodies involved in media regulation:
- The response by independent media self regulator, IMPRESS [pdf]
- The response by the Press Recognition Panel [pdf}
Submissions from others
- The submission by Graham Smith (of the Cyberleagle Blog), with the post title “Speech is not a tripping hazard”
- The submission by Martin Moore [pdf] (the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power)
- Online Harms White Paper: Two comments on “harms” – Hugh Tomlinson QC
- The response of Paul Bernal (of the UEA Law School).
[Update] Our attention has been drawn to the following additional submissions
- Response on behalf of RPC Tech Group – the full response can be found here [pdf]
- Response from Professor Tsachi Keren-Paz, University of Sheffield, School of Law [doc]
Please let us know if there are other submissions which it would be useful to add to this list.