Parliament is on the verge of passing the National Security (State Threats) Bill, and I think far too few people understand what it could mean.

The government says this legislation is designed to protect Britain from hostile foreign states. That sounds reasonable. But when you look closely at what the bill actually says, serious questions emerge about its effect on journalism, research, blogging and public debate.

In this video, I explain why.

The bill allows organisations to be designated as state threats. Once that happens, obtaining information from them could itself become a criminal offence carrying a prison sentence of up to 14 years. Independent reviewers have already warned that the legislation is drafted so broadly that journalists may have to rely on prosecutorial discretion rather than clear legal protections.

That matters because reporting conflicts has always depended on speaking to every side. Whether the conflict is in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen or elsewhere, understanding events requires access to information from multiple sources, not just those governments approve of.

This is not simply a legal issue. It is an issue of political economy. Information is a public good. Democracy depends upon informed citizens. If access to information is reduced, rumour, misinformation and distrust are likely to grow.

Is this really the balance Parliament should be striking between national security and democratic accountability? If so, we should all be worried.