In George Orwell’s 1984, the Party warned citizens through telescreens that “Big Brother is Watching You.” In 2024, “Your online actions can have consequences. Think before you post!” blared the image on the screen from the UK government’s social media accounts.
The UK government posted its Orwellian threat because it is dealing with significant unrest in the aftermath of the murder of three young girls at a Southport dance class by a perpetrator who was falsely identified as an illegal immigrant. Some anti-immigration protests across the country turned into violent riots, and violence was also seen by some of the counterprotests. One of the ways the government has responded is by warning social media companies and users about online speech that they consider to “incite violence or hatred.”
One would think that the British government would have a little more self-awareness before going on about vague threats to surveil and censor the speech of its citizens, but they decided to make a real dog’s dinner of it. The response online was overwhelmingly negative, with many critical and mocking references to 1984 and the Declaration of Independence.
But however well-intentioned or misguided, they may not be alone in their sentiments. In fact, Americans are increasingly open to censorship and restrictions on their speech that are similar to what we have seen in Europe and elsewhere. So it’s worth looking at the current row in the UK to show how quickly what may seem well-intentioned can lead to harmful censorship and threaten individual liberty, democracy, and social progress.
While the government is right that direct calls for imminent violence have no place in a democracy, the government’s censorship threats appear to go beyond such specific threats or actions. Unlike the United States, the UK and most other countries have hate speech laws that are inherently vague and subjective about what speech is illegal. Such laws go well beyond the type of speech many would detest in polite society and can also include true statements that some could view as “inciting hate.”
For instance, any controversial but important topics risk being off-limits for fear of prosecution, including conversations about immigration policies, religion, conflict in the Middle East, transgender medicine, or abortion.
As if to prove this point, the UK government is also reportedly mulling an official Islamophobia definition that could effectively prohibit criticism of Islam. If passed, this wouldn’t be the only European nation to recently backslide into blasphemy and sacrilege laws, as we saw Denmark do last year.
Even those who believe such speech does not belong online should be concerned about the precedent actions like the UK government’s could set. In its attempts to go after such harmful content, the government has also reinvigorated a secretive online speech unit and is arresting people for sharing misinformation regarding the identity of the murderer. And the London Police chief is threatening to extradite Americans for inciting hatred.
But issues like misinformation or hate speech are not always black and white. As the past few years have shown, sometimes it’s the established narrative from governments and experts that is actually wrong, and we should be concerned about the potential discourse on important topics silenced in the process.
Such censorship has long been used to silence dissidents in totalitarian regimes, but even more worrying is that many democratic nations seem to be more comfortable with the idea the government can enforce the truth or stop hate. Indeed, research shows that democracies worldwide are increasingly censoring their citizens in a dangerous “free speech recession.”
Speech laws aimed to “protect” certain groups may even make things worse. Vague hate speech laws will almost inevitably be turned against even those they are meant to protect. In 2012, a Muslim British teenager was convicted for aggressively criticizing the deaths of Afghan civilians at the hands of British soldiers. Pro-immigration, pro-trans medicine, pro-abortion, or pro-Muslim or Palestinian statements could be viewed by others as inciting hatred that is anti-British, anti-woman, anti-Christian, or anti-Jewish and Israeli. Censorship is always a double-edged sword that cannot be carefully wielded only by the “right” people at the “right” times.
And by policing thought crimes, the UK is preventing its citizens from using their words to express their views regarding a high-profile and emotionally charged issue. With no peaceful way to make their voice heard, some will turn to violence as the only remaining option.
The UK government’s response to this time of unrest has gone pear-shaped as it further expands its power at the expense of its citizens. But such Big Brother overreach is hardly unique to the UK. The United States, Britain, and all democratic societies must reject censorship as a cure for the struggles we face while punishing those who are actually violent.
