A Global Pattern: Different Countries Suppressing Free Speech with Similar Legislations
A Global Pattern: Different Countries Suppressing Free Speech with Similar Legislations
Do they follow the worst examples or is there some sort of co-ordinated planning at play?
“The proliferation of hate and lies in the digital space is causing grave global harm. It is fueling conflict, death and destruction. It is threatening democracy and human rights. It is undermining public health and climate action.” This was the message that UN Secretary-General António Guterres delivered to the public in June when he presented yet another report on the fight against "misinformation, disinformation and hate speech" on the internet. One of the main concerns of this report was the allegedly widespread "misinformation" on the internet. Except that the examples of 'misinformation' given in the report did not, on closer inspection, turn out to be false statements at all. The big concern, according to the report, is the use of the #ClimateScam hashtag on the social media platform X. It is certainly possible to find a variety of posts and allegations about climate problems under this hashtag. However, a significant number of these are certainly not about scientific claims, but about the hypocrisy of decision-makers and other climate change talkers – such as big businessmen flying private jets to climate conferences or Hollywood stars worrying about the environment in their giant fuel-guzzling luxury yachts.
Similarly, the report said that misinformation was interfering in the fight against Covid, but what kind of misinformation was meant by that, was left unspecified. Clarification would also be difficult, as it would have to start with refuting the lies that were spread through the pandemic about the danger of Covid itself, as well as the effectiveness of vaccines, for example. We have written more about this UN document here.
However, such 'trivia' did not bother Guterres who presented the report. "Digital platforms are being misused to subvert science and spread disinformation and hate to billions of people," he declared. And so it is only natural that, in his view, both national governments and technology companies should commit themselves to combat 'hate speech', 'disinformation', and 'misinformation'.
Australia
For those who haven't noticed, this is exactly what is being done around the world. One of the latest examples is Australia. In June this year, the Australian government tabled a bill in the country's parliament to tackle the spread of 'misinformation'. How 'misinformation' is to be defined is a bit of a mystery, however, and is causing controversy and opposition in the country. Critics of the bill are calling it a destruction of democracy and freedom of expression.
Enforcement of the law would be entrusted to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Penalties for the offending companies would be substantial and linked to a company's global turnover. Potential infringements would be looked at in two separate sections. Where the offense relates to ‘a code of practice’, which the ACMA itself can require the industry organisations or companies to comply with, the maximum fine is A$2.75 million (€1.68 million) or 2% of the company's global turnover in the previous 12 months, if this is more than the amount stated. For example, if Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, were to be found in breach, as of the end of September they had a turnover of $127 billion (€118.1 billion) in the last 12 months – a potential fine would be $2.54 billion (€2.36 billion).
However, if the infringement concerns an industry standard developed by the ACMA itself, the fine could be up to $A6.8 million ($4.15 million) or up to 5% of turnover. In the case of the Meta, 5% would mean $6.35 billion (€5.9 billion).
It is also noteworthy that the draft sets out which information, regardless of its content, is definitely not 'misinformation'. According to the draft, any message that has been approved by the state or municipality would fall into this category. Perhaps, for example, if during the coronavirus crisis, the government promised people that vaccines were 100% effective and it later turned out that this was false, then under the draft this claim cannot be treated as false information retrospectively.
Europe
Australia is certainly not reinventing the wheel here by introducing censorship rules. A similar scheme, whereby the state tells platforms what can and cannot be shared and threatens them with stiff fines if they fail to comply, is already in place in many countries.
As we wrote some time ago in our analysis of freedom of expression in Germany, the first similar law was introduced there in 2018. Under a law then known as the NetzDG, Germany imposed an obligation on social media platforms to remove "illegal content". This had to be done within 24 hours of receipt of the notice. Businesses that failed to comply faced fines of up to €50 million. The law was criticised by freedom of expression campaigners and even by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression David Kaye, but it still came into force. This implementation of online censorship immediately attracted the interest of others, with at least 13 countries taking inspiration from it. These included Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, India, Kenya, Vietnam, Honduras, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. In addition, it was the European Commission that started to develop a general regulation for the European Union, by proposing to follow the German law.
And, as we now know, a similar general regulation at the EU level came into force in August – the Digital Services Act (DSA) that we have written more about here. Under this act, social media platforms must remove content classified as 'illegal' from their platforms in response to notifications, but the potential fines are even heavier. If a platform fails to comply with the new obligation, it could face huge fines of up to 6% of its global turnover. In addition, the new regime gives the possibility to shut down platforms in case of non-compliance. However, the problem is that the definition of "illegal" in this context is so vague that it includes criminal activities such as sharing child pornography, etc., as well as arbitrary terms such as 'hate speech' or 'disinformation'. In essence, it is again a tool with which freedom of expression can be successfully and forcefully curtailed at will.
Alongside the European Union, the United Kingdom adopted a similar law called the Online Safety Bill in September. There, too, there is talk of "illegal content", which platforms must remove or else face fines of up to 10% of their global turnover.
Canada
Canada also started developing a similar regime in 2021. Under their plan, companies hosting social media platforms had 24 hours to review and, if necessary, remove content flagged as harmful or illegal. If a company would fail to do so, fines could be as high as 3% of the company's global turnover. The plan received a lot of criticism and was initially delayed. However, Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani promised to move forward with it in October.
Perhaps the upshot is that in countries where the constitutional protection of freedom of expression is not as strong as in the United States, the authorities have embarked on a path of legalising censorship. And they are doing so with the hands of others, i.e. by threatening private companies with sanctions they would face if they are not sufficiently zealous in restricting opinions or speech labelled 'misinformation'. In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of expression so strongly that it is essentially impossible to legalise such schemes. However, during the Covid crisis, the government there tried to secretly pressure social media companies to censor dissent from the 'approved' opinions – we have covered this at length here, for example.
Restricting freedom of expression leads in only one direction – away from a free society and the rule of law, and closer to what we see today in authoritarian countries like Russia and China.
If you can give more examples from different countries, please add the references in the comments section.