As unrest sweeps through the streets of cities across the UK, some MPs are trying to blame it on social media – not wanting government policies on issues such as immigration, policing and social services to be at the center of discussions. On the contrary, they debate The riots were largely triggered by discussions taking place on social media and used the opportunity to advocate for restrictions on British citizens’ speech and access to information.
Lawmakers want social media companies to ban the accounts of users accused of inciting violence, criticizing the companies for previously failing to follow such instructions. Labor MP Chris Curtis debate Social media bosses need to “step up efforts to deal with malicious messages that incite division and incite violence”. Likewise, the Conservatives and shadow home secretary James Cleverly explain This is ‘unacceptable’ [social media companies] They only make profits without fulfilling their responsibilities. think Drag X owner Elon Musk before a parliamentary committee to explain the platform’s “role in spreading misinformation.”
Although it won’t come into effect until 2025, UK Online Security Act It’s seen as a tool to curb harmful views that politicians say are fueling unrest. If a website hosts content that is disputed, the law will sanction it potentially Harmful to the user. OfcomThe UK media regulator responsible for enforcing the bill has warn Social media companies ensure compliance with existing and upcoming laws regarding online speech, including obligation Eliminate “situations of hatred, riots, incitement to violence or certain disinformation”.
The Cybersecurity Bill gives the British government strong control over digital speech in the name of “security.” Against the backdrop of civil unrest in the UK, it is clear that we should all recognize that well-intentioned policies to improve online security can easily turn into widespread online censorship. In the United States, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are pushing Children’s Internet Safety Act (KOSA) – a proposal very similar UK Online Safety Bill.
Holding corporations accountable for speech that is not theirs can have unintended consequences, especially for free speech. Imposing legal liability for private citizen speech on those who did not actually speak, in this case online platforms, creates strong incentives for these businesses to remove any Content that may give rise to legal scrutiny.
It is neither fair nor reasonable to hold websites responsible for the speech of their users. Let us be clear: the “malicious messaging” Curtis laments is the opinion of British citizens, not Facebook, X or Telegram. Instead of addressing citizens’ concerns about their policy choices, politicians are trying to shift blame. Proposals to decentralize responsibility would allow governments to frame the rules simply as “holding corporations accountable,” allowing them to control online speech without jailing citizens for their wrong ideas.
Without the First Amendment, British citizens lack a reliable legal system to prevent the government from using legal action to force private media businesses to censor on its behalf.
As more and more users turn Social media messaging rather than news feeds has put messaging apps like Telegram and WhatsApp in charge of private conversations, posing an even more alarming threat to the free flow of information online. Many of the “Technology Accountability” proposals would impact traditional News Feed and direct messages. By making them responsible for users’ private messages, messaging services will be forced to monitor users’ conversations and reduce their use of encryption – a key technology that protects the digital privacy and security of all online users – to avoid government crackdowns.
What was once a global network is fragmenting. Other governments around the world are becoming increasingly bold in asserting control of the digital realm. Türkiye recent prohibit Instagram removes pro-Hamas content while Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro urge Supporters abandoned WhatsApp, fearing it was being used by dissidents. Such initiatives were once unthinkable, but are now commonplace. The web looks increasingly different depending on where you log in.
Sadly, Europe, including but not limited to the EU, is following this trend. They may reject some of the values of countries like Turkey and Venezuela, but their approaches to online messaging are similar. Their policymakers believe that the free flow of information online is a bug, not a feature. As a result, they hope to force tech companies to filter out speech the government deems objectionable.
In the United States, some politicians draw inspiration From the advocates of European internet censorship. KOSA is just one of the proposals moving forward in Congress that reflects a dangerous and un-American belief that free speech can do more harm than good.
Although the First Amendment protects free speech in the United States, it has not stopped politicians from pushing for government controls on online speech under the guise of child safety and combating misinformation. If passed, these proposals could prompt the court to weaken basic free speech protections in the United States while failing to achieve its stated goals. The evolving discussion about citizen speech on social media and riots in the UK shows how quickly well-intentioned regulations can morph into regimes that undermine the core principles of a free society.
