Websites Blocked, Social Media Banned, Online Commentors and Journalists Arrested, Peaceful Protestors Facing Decades In Jail, Websites Shutting Down Due To Legal Risks. Forget Russia, Welcome To The United Kingdom. 

When Antony Blinken began his last press conference as Secretary of State, he began with a speech about the importance of journalists asking questions. “Sometimes that’s not always the most comfortable thing, the most enjoyable thing, but that is the most necessary thing,” he said. 

This was followed by Journalist Max Blumenthal interrupting him to ask about the number of journalists killed in Gaza by the US backed Israeli government (currently placed at “at least 167” by the Committee to Protect Journalists). Blinken did not feel it necessary to answer that question, instead Blumenthal was ushered out of the room by an aide. 10 minutes later when talking about Gaza, Sam Husseini interrupted to ask, “do you know about the Hannibal directive?” a reference to reports in Haaretz (Isreal’s paper of record) that the Israeli Army deliberately shot its own soldiers as opposed to see them captured by Hamas.

He was dragged off by several police officers. Videos of both incidents promptly went viral on TikTok, but US politicians won’t have to deal with even that shortly, as Apple and Google are no longer permitted to issue updates to the app through their app stores. The Supreme Court justified its decision by citing the risk that China may access data from US TikTok users. However, TikTok argues that US users data is stored in the US under Project Texas and many of TikTok’s critics openly state that their real motivation is more political: they believe TikTok promotes content that opposes US foreign policy goals (in particular content suggesting that Palestinians face genocide and Uigurs do not). 

It is often hard to tell whether a restriction on free speech is justified, which has become harder since these concerns became entangled with concerns over ‘cancel culture’.

However, while it seems likely that growing attempts by activists across the political spectrum to get people they disagree with fired likely feed into an acceptance of government censorship, the actions of private citizens and of governments are distinct issues. 

The UK in particular has waged a campaign against citizen journalists who express unpopular views on foreign policy. Over the last few years it has arrested or detained Sarah Wilkinson, Richard Medhurst, Craig Murray, Kit Klanberg, and Johanna Ross. Sarah Wilkinson provides a particularly stark example. The 61-year-old who suffers from Crohn’s disease was arrested in a dawn raid by the West Midlands Counter Terror Squad on the suspicion of “supporting a proscribed organisation”, which carries a 14 year jail sentence but could mean as little as making favourable posts about Hamas on Instagram. 

While Palestinian solidarity is generally associated with the left, right wing internet users have been under fire too. Bernadette Spofforth was arrested for posting misinformation to social media about the Southport killer and adding the sentence “if this is true, there will be hell to pay.” She was arrested for “publishing written material to stir up racial hatred” but freespeech defenders like myself note that even if her actions were morally repugnant, her post did not mention any particular racial group or suggested that they should be hated. The police seem to have come to a similar conclusion as the case was dropped due to “insufficient evidence”. 

One might turn to foreign websites that operate outside of the reach of the British government but the UK has been attempting to crack down on these. While working at a UK broadband firm during my gap year, instructions were published from Ofcom directing us to block access to the Russian government’s two main English language news sites, RT and Sputnik. 

You likely have not heard about this as it only received attention in the industry publication ISPReview. 

This censorship extends offline too, in 2022 the UK passed the controversial PCSC Act, which included a serious of vague restrictions on public assemblies including imposing a 10 year jail sentence for causing “serious annoyance”. As I put it in a letter to Lord Deben at the time, “I think my youngest brother causes me serious annoyance but while I may occasionally wish that someone would take him off my hands, I’m sure you will agree that it would be unreasonable to imprison him for 10 years.” 

Thankfully no judge would consider my brother worthy of a jail sentence, however one judge has sentenced people to 4 or 5 year sentences for obstructing the M25, a decision I struggle to understand, especially given that the M25 would probably have been at a standstill anyway.

Judge Christopher later gave a 2-year sentence to protestors who threw soup in front of a Van Gogh. This stands out when compared with his other sentences. He did not give any time to two people guilty of violent disorder, one person guilty of violent affray, or a police officer guilty of sexual contact with a drunk woman in his patrol car. 

One might hope that small websites that can fly under the radar might save us, but here too new rules are posing an unprecedented threat. Microcosm which hosts 300 small scale forums has decided to shut down, citing “disproportionately high personal liability” stemming from the Online Harms Act. For the same reason the Green Party of England and Wales is shuttering their own internal forum. 

Individually these acts alone seem may seem proportionate, or at least tolerable, but taken together and the only way you or me will be able to legally profess an opinion will soon be to hold up a blank sign somewhere no one can see us.

What can be done? Calls for free speech itself have yet to be banned, so we should make them, and make them loudly. We should also take the view of Voltaire’s biographer that, 

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Free speech should not be a luxury we keep only for our side of the political aisle. Finally, I would like to leave you with a ray of hope. Unlike China or Russia, the UK’s internet censorship is enforced with polite notices instead of random disappearances which may have led certain internet companies to decide to take a more half-hearted approach. I am not going to name any names but between Ofcom’s dictat and my research for this article, going to RT’s website on my home broadband (which I will note is not provided by the company I worked for) started returning RT’s website again.

Image Credit: Unsplash