British understatement

Concerning plans to impose censorship upon the internet the claim is made that:

However, critics have said the proposals expose “the sinister and authoritarian side” of Sir Keir’s Labour Party, driving “a coach and horses” through the principle of free speech.

The particular proposal is:

The Telegraph understands that ministers are looking at introducing a duty on social media companies to restrict “legal but harmful” content.

It could mean that firms are required to remove or suppress posts spreading fake news about asylum seekers or other topics such as self-harm, even if they do not meet the threshold for illegality.

It is suppression of free speech. It is censorship. To merely say that it is is an understatement.

A “legal but harmful” clause, requiring firms to take down or restrict the visibility of content deemed to be dangerous but not against the law, was included in the original Bill brought forward by the Tories in 2022.

However, it was removed because of free-speech concerns, with critics warning it could allow a future Labour government to censor controversial material.

Slippery slope arguments are sometimes to often logically invalid. The slope must exist rather than merely be claimed. But if government takes unto itself the power to determine what we may say - other than the usual restrictions upon incitement to immediate violence - then that slope really is there. For we will end up with it being illegal to question the tractor production statistics. The slope being that politics simply will exercise any such powers that it takes unto itself.

It’s entirely true that some exercises of free speech can be harmful. But not having the free speech is greatly more so, viciously more harmful.

No, this is a terrible idea.

Quite apart from anything else how can a government serve a population if the government doesn’t know what the population is saying?

Tim Worstall