DAN GAINOR: England doesn’t have free speech and wants to take ours away, too – Fox News

Report on United Kingdom’s Online Speech Regulation and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Recent legislative and enforcement actions within the United Kingdom concerning online speech have prompted a global discussion on the balance between safety, censorship, and fundamental freedoms. These developments are critically relevant to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Analysis of UK’s Regulatory Framework

The Online Safety Act (OSA) and Enforcement

The United Kingdom’s approach to digital governance, primarily through the Online Safety Act (OSA), mandates that technology companies regulate content on their platforms. This has led to significant enforcement actions that impact individuals and corporations both within and outside the UK.

• Arrests for Online Content: Reports indicate approximately 12,000 arrests are made annually in England for statements made online.
• Extraterritorial Application: The framework has been applied to non-residents, as seen in the case of Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who was arrested by Metropolitan police in relation to posts made on the social media platform X while he was in the United States.
• Corporate Penalties: US-based companies have been targeted. The meme-centric site 4Chan was fined £20,000 for non-compliance with an information notice related to the OSA, with potential for fines to escalate to approximately $24 million.

Intersection with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The UK’s policies on online speech directly engage with several targets under SDG 16, raising questions about their alignment with global development objectives.

1. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. The legislation, while intended to curb harmful content, creates a direct tension with the fundamental freedom of expression. The high number of arrests and the broad definition of “hate speech” challenge the protection of this freedom, a cornerstone of Target 16.10.
2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels. The extraterritorial enforcement of the OSA against foreign nationals and companies raises concerns about international legal norms and the rule of law. It challenges the principle of jurisdiction and creates legal uncertainty for global citizens and businesses.
3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions. The debate over police resources being allocated to monitoring online speech (“policing tweets”) versus other criminal matters brings the accountability and effectiveness of public institutions into focus. A shift towards compelling tech companies to conduct this policing further complicates institutional accountability.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The global nature of the internet means that national regulations have international consequences, impacting the partnerships necessary to achieve the SDGs.

• Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The stark contrast between the UK’s regulatory model and the First Amendment-protected rights in the United States highlights a significant lack of international policy coherence on digital governance. This divergence complicates cross-border data flows, business operations, and the universal application of human rights online.

International Response and Corporate Stance

Resistance to UK Regulation

Several US-based entities and individuals have expressed opposition to complying with the UK’s legal framework, citing conflicts with principles of free speech.

• 4Chan: The company is reportedly fighting the fine and the requirement to assess its compliance with UK law.
• Wikipedia: Co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated that the platform will not implement age-gating for content under any circumstances, signaling a potential “political showdown” over the OSA’s requirements.

Call for a Coherent Global Framework

The situation has prompted calls for a more robust defense of free speech at an international level. Legal experts and commentators suggest that a lack of a unified Western stance on this issue poses a significant challenge. The need for legislative bodies, such as the US Congress, to address the extraterritorial reach of foreign censorship laws is increasingly being articulated as a necessary step to protect citizens and corporations. This underscores the urgent need for international dialogue to align national digital policies with the universal objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) addressed in the article is:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal aims to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” The article’s central theme revolves around the issues of justice, fundamental freedoms, and the role of state institutions in regulating speech. It discusses laws, policing actions, and legal frameworks that impact individual liberties, which are core components of SDG 16. The text critiques the actions of the British police and government, questioning the strength and accountability of these institutions in upholding what the author considers fundamental rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s focus on freedom of expression and legal actions against it, the following specific target under SDG 16 is directly relevant:

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The entire article is a commentary on the state of fundamental freedoms, specifically freedom of speech. It highlights how this freedom is allegedly being curtailed in England through legislation and policing. The article explicitly contrasts the British approach with the American First Amendment, discussing the arrest of individuals like Graham Linehan for online posts and the legal pressure on companies like 4Chan and Wikipedia to comply with the “British Online Safety Act.” These examples directly concern the protection of fundamental freedoms.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article implicitly addresses this target by questioning the application of law and justice in England regarding online speech. The arrest of an Irish citizen for comments made in the U.S. and the extraterritorial application of the Online Safety Act to an American company (4Chan) raise questions about the rule of law at an international level. The author’s fear of being arrested as a visitor (“Preston Byrne… won’t even travel in England because he’s concerned he might be arrested”) suggests a perceived lack of predictable and just legal protection.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several specific, albeit non-official, indicators that can be used to measure the protection of fundamental freedoms as outlined in Target 16.10.

1. Number of arrests for online speech: The article provides a direct quantitative indicator by stating, “England arrests 12,000 people a year for what they say online.” This figure serves as a direct measure of the extent to which freedom of expression is being criminalized.
2. Existence and enforcement of restrictive legislation: The article points to the “British Online Safety Act or OSA” as a key legislative tool for speech regulation. The enforcement of this act, including the levying of fines (“fined 4Chan 20,000 pounds or over $26,000”) and the threat of more severe penalties (“up to about $24 million and possible jail”), serves as an indicator of the legal and institutional framework limiting free speech.
3. Number of investigations into “non-crime hate incidents”: The article mentions that the “Met police have since backed off and said, ‘they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents'”. The practice of investigating such incidents, and any changes to that policy, can be seen as an indicator of the level of state surveillance and control over speech that is not explicitly criminal.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foxnews.com