Quick Read
- UK House of Lords backed a ban on social media for under-16s, defeating the government in a vote.
- Hugh Grant is a key campaigner for the social media ban, alongside other prominent figures like Esther Ghey.
- The government announced a three-month consultation on the ban, which critics view as a delay.
- Elizabeth Hurley testified in a privacy lawsuit, detailing alleged phone hacking and bugging.
- Hurley learned about phone hacking from Hugh Grant in 2015 and donated her lawsuit winnings to ‘Hacked Off’, a press reform group Grant supports.
Veteran actor Hugh Grant stands at the nexus of two pivotal legislative and legal battles currently unfolding in the United Kingdom, both aimed at safeguarding individuals from the perceived harms of powerful industries. His advocacy has been instrumental in recent developments, including the House of Lords’ overwhelming support for a ban on social media for under-16s and his long-standing commitment to press reform, which was brought into sharp focus by Elizabeth Hurley’s recent testimony in a high-profile privacy lawsuit.
House of Lords Backs Under-16 Social Media Ban Amid Growing Concerns
In a significant move that signals growing political momentum, the House of Lords has emphatically backed a cross-party amendment calling for a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. The vote, which saw peers defeat the government by 261 votes to 150, represents a major victory for campaigners, including Hugh Grant, who argue that current online platforms inflict catastrophic harm on a generation of young people. This decision now compels Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Commons to consider the measure.
The push for an Australian-style ban stems from widespread concern among parents and campaigners who feel they are in an ‘impossible position’ trying to protect their children from online harms. Lord Nash, a Conservative former schools minister who spearheaded the calls, emphasized the overwhelming evidence linking extensive social media use to negative impacts on children’s health, cognitive ability, educational attainment, and even economic productivity. He asserted that the point of correlation or causation has long passed, and urgent action is required.
Despite the government’s announcement of a three-month consultation to explore the advantages and disadvantages of a ban, along with potential overnight curfews and measures against ‘doom-scrolling,’ critics view this as a delaying tactic. Lord Nash described the consultation as ‘unnecessary, misconceived and clearly a last-minute attempt to kick this can down the road.’ Other prominent figures, including paediatrician Baroness Cass and filmmaker Baroness Kidron, echoed this sentiment, arguing that the government’s primary duty is to act, not merely consult, especially when children’s safety is at stake. Baroness Kidron specifically noted that ‘a consultation is the playground of the tech lobbyist and inaction is the most powerful tool in politics.’
The debate highlighted the sophisticated and often ‘borderline criminal’ business models of social media firms, as described by Baroness Bertin, who led a review of pornography. She accused these companies of having ‘made off like bandits with our children’s innocence.’ The urgency was further underscored by Ellen Roome, an online safety campaigner whose 14-year-old son tragically died while attempting an online challenge. Her delight at the vote reflects the profound impact of these issues on families across the UK.
Hugh Grant was among a coalition of high-profile figures, including Esther Ghey, whose daughter Brianna was murdered by teenagers and had a ‘social media addiction,’ singer Peter Andre, and actress Sophie Winkleman, who signed a letter to political leaders backing the amendment. The letter underscored that children are routinely exposed to extreme content without seeking it out, and parents cannot address this challenge alone, necessitating political intervention.
While some, like Liberal Democrat Lord Clement-Jones, raised concerns that a blanket ban might create a ‘sterile digital environment’ and leave children unprepared for adult content at 16, the prevailing sentiment in the Lords was that immediate action is paramount. The government has reassured peers of its commitment to robust action but stresses the need to determine the most effective approach through consultation, aiming for a ‘short, sharp’ review before bringing forward further amendments.
Hugh Grant’s Enduring Fight for Press Reform Highlighted in Privacy Lawsuit
Beyond his current focus on social media, Hugh Grant has been a long-standing and vocal advocate for press reform in the UK, a commitment recently brought to light through the emotional testimony of actress Elizabeth Hurley. Appearing before the High Court in London as part of a high-profile privacy lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, Hurley described a ‘brutal invasion of privacy’ that included the alleged bugging of her landlines and home.
Hurley, 60, is one of seven claimants in the lawsuit, which also includes Prince Harry and singer Elton John, alleging widespread privacy violations dating from the early 1990s to the 2010s. Associated Newspapers has vehemently denied these claims, labeling them ‘preposterous smears.’
In her testimony, a tearful Hurley recounted learning about phone hacking in 2015 from her ex-boyfriend, Hugh Grant. He informed her that she could pursue a claim against another newspaper group, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). Hurley subsequently won £350,000 in damages from MGN, which she then donated entirely to ‘Hacked Off’, a prominent press reform campaign group that Grant actively supports. Despite their close relationship, Hurley admitted to the court that she never had ‘grown-up conversations’ with Grant about the specifics of the issue, stating, ‘We are just silly together… maybe I’m not a very good friend.’
Hurley’s account painted a vivid picture of the distress caused by constant surveillance, including microphones allegedly attached to windows in her house. She rejected suggestions that her friends had leaked information to the press, asserting that the intrusions were systemic. Her discovery in 2020 of the full extent of this ‘brutal invasion of privacy’ left her ‘crushed,’ as detailed in her written witness statement.
Grant’s own history with the tabloid press is well-documented, making him a natural ally for victims of privacy invasions. His involvement with ‘Hacked Off’ and his consistent calls for greater accountability in journalism underscore a broader commitment to ethical media practices. The ongoing High Court case, with prominent figures like Prince Harry also giving evidence, highlights the continued relevance and intensity of the debate surrounding press conduct and the protection of individual privacy in the digital age.
Hugh Grant’s activism, spanning both the regulation of social media and the reform of the press, reveals a consistent theme: a dedicated effort to challenge powerful institutions that, in his view, exploit or harm individuals, particularly the vulnerable, for profit or sensationalism. His willingness to lend his celebrity to these causes amplifies their reach and underscores the urgency of establishing clearer boundaries for media and technology companies.