Liberal democracies have thrived due to the unrestricted exchange of ideas. However, recent events at British broadcaster GB News raise concerns about the erosion of free speech. Presenters Mark Steyn, Laurence Fox, Dan Wootton, and Reverend Calvin Robinson have all faced repercussions for their views or comments. Steyn faced fines from UK media regulator Ofcom for questioning the government’s transparency on COVID boosters, which led to his resignation. Fox and Wootton were taken off the air after Fox made inappropriate remarks about a journalist on Wootton’s show. Robinson shared traditional Christian values and exposed the cancellation of Reverend Richard Fothergill by a financial institution for voicing concerns about promoting transgender ideology to children. The incidents at GB News have prompted calls for the network’s removal and highlight a shift toward political censorship disguised as social justice.
Furthermore, the UK government has proposed granting more censorship powers to Ofcom through the Online Safety Bill. The bill aims to protect audiences from harmful online content but has faced criticism for potentially limiting freedom of expression. The notion of “harmful but legal” content was removed due to protests, which would have allowed the censorship of content deemed potentially harmful by the regulator. This echoes similar proposals in the Australian Labor government’s Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which grants a government body the power to remove “misinformation” or “disinformation” from digital platforms. However, defining harm in these contexts is expansive and includes potential harm to democratic processes, health, environment, and the economy. These bills overlook the long-standing belief in the free exchange of ideas as the foundation of liberal democracies and the ability to challenge false claims with evidence. It is important to note that existing laws already address speech that incites violence or damages reputations through criminal and defamation laws.
While there may be instances of nonsense and falsehoods online, the evidence of harm caused by such content is unclear. Moreover, the bill exempts government statements from being labeled as misinformation. It is also worth noting that historically, no representation has caused serious harm to democracy, the environment, or the economy. Individuals have the agency to make informed decisions and respond to false information. The greatest harm to society often occurs when governments control the narrative, limiting the freedoms of its citizens. The events at GB News may foreshadow a concerning trend. Centuries of the vital right to free speech, which holds governments accountable to their citizens, could vanish if “Misinformation” and “Online Safety Bills” become law.