They turn a deaf ear

What statements can land you in prison in Great Britain

The West loves pointing out to others the necessity of upholding freedom of speech. But what is the reality? In the countries of the ‘golden billion’, a viewpoint that differs from the one imposed ‘from above’ is unlikely to even have a chance of breaking through, for instance, into the online space. Yet, even if this sieve is somehow overcome, then the troublemakers face legal proceedings. How is media content controlled abroad?

Situation remains unchanged

Recently on BBC airwaves, Carla Sands, who had served as the US ambassador to Denmark during Trump’s first presidential term, silenced the host who began to criticise the recent speech by US Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, reminding her of the arrests in the UK, where people were detained for online publications that displeased the authorities. 

“More people are in prison for speaking what they thought was right or had interest online in the UK than in all of Russia,” Sands told the journalist. 
Criticism of the Foggy Albion is quite justified. Almost immediately, an interview with Konstantin Kisin (a former stand-up comedian who moved from Russia to the UK) was pulled from the internet, which he gave to John Anderson, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia who at one point felt like a blogger. Kisin, who does not harbour particularly warm feelings for his homeland, stated that in Britain, where 67 million people live, there are 3,300 arrested for social media publications. Meanwhile, in 150 million-strong Russia, there are only 400. According to Kisin, the police in the English county of Essex arrest about 160 people a year on such charges, while in London, the figure is over 800.
Yes, these are the data for the years 2016-2017. Even then, people in the UK were being arrested and prosecuted en masse for their opinions. Considering Carla Sands’ recent statements, the situation has not changed significantly over the years.

Control is tightening

More than 100 residents of Britain received sentences of up to six years in jail for participating in anti-immigrant protests last July. In total, over a thousand people were detained at that time, including those charged with inciting riots and stirring up ethnic hatred on social media. 
Notably, individuals were convicted for incitement even though they had not written about the protests at all. They simply expressed their opposition to the migration policies implemented by London on social media.
British authorities are regularly tightening information control on social media. As early as 2023, the Online Safety Act was passed in the country, in line with which internet platforms face fines of up to 10 percent of their annual revenue if they refuse to remove content flagged to them. The law also provides for criminal penalties for prohibited actions, which can encompass virtually anything, including the publication of any information.

From questions to punishment

In 2023, at least 12 journalists in the United States were arrested based on dubious charges. Two were charged with felonies for ‘disclosing and disseminating information’, which is essentially the work of journalists. A reporter in Illinois was accused of asking city employees ‘too many questions’. 
Journalists not only have their equipment confiscated and information storage devices destroyed — in the US, it is quite possible to ban the publication of any outlet, seize already published issues, or remove any article from a portal. Furthermore, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows social media and electronic media owners to moderate any user-generated content as they see fit.

The dissemination of information that does not align with the directives issued by the authorities is equated with a breach of professional ethics and carries severe consequences. Journalists are dismissed and even stripped of the possibility to work in their field. 

Criminal cases are initiated against some individuals. Furthermore, the United States exerts increased pressure on media outlets in partner countries, compelling them to implement strict censorship. There have been instances where local media have been forced to co-ordinate the content they publish directly with staff from American embassies. Additionally, disclosed information about the operations of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has revealed how America promotes worldwide media materials that serve its interests by financing the world’s media outlets.

What is subject to blocking?

In the American segment of the internet, both media outlets and ordinary citizens who publish content that contradicts the official narrative of a specific situation face repression. Previously, all users of the Facebook platform encountered blocks on information related to the special military operation if it reflected a non-Ukrainian perspective on events. Not only were posts moderated, but also user comments were scrutinised, leading to the complete blocking of accounts that published such content. Meanwhile, on the same Facebook platform, calls to ‘kill Russians’, guides on methods of killing, the manufacture of explosives, and other similar content were actively disseminated. In those cases, moderators of the platform ignored user complaints regarding the blatant spread of materials related to terrorism and racial hatred.
According to The Country Report on Human Rights Violations prepared jointly by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and Russia in 2024, “On March 11th, 2022, an email from the Meta internal mailing list was published. It indicated that the company would temporarily allow the platforms Facebook and Instagram in a number of countries not to block users’ calls for violence against Russians, including military personnel.” It was also noted that calls for the death of leaders of certain countries would not be removed from social media.

However, now — in light of the change in policy from the White House — the pendulum of media control has swung in the opposite direction. At the same time, the blocking of undesirable sources of information in the US has become so commonplace that ordinary Americans sometimes do not even suspect the existence of any information online other than that which is permitted by the Department of State. Messages that cannot be blocked are labelled as ‘misinformation’ or ‘belonging to a state excluded from the recommended list’.

This is just a small part of the examples of how freedom of speech looks in the West. In this regard, accusations from representatives of Brussels, London, and Washington made against other countries of the absence of all of the above sound at least absurd. It is akin to a terminally ill person, who has spent their life drinking, smoking, and consuming all unhealthy things, trying to teach others about a healthy lifestyle based on their own example… 

BEAM IN THEIR OWN EYE 

In the United States, surveillance and monitoring permeate all aspects of life. Under the pretext of combating terrorism, the USA controls every step of its own citizens. Furthermore, America conducts mass surveillance beyond its borders.  
Thus, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows US intelligence agencies to access the emails and phone calls of residents of foreign countries. The intelligence services use the information obtained through surveillance for their own purposes, orchestrating leaks and providing it to government bodies without the proper requests and permissions from the judiciary, as stipulated by law.

By Alena Krasovskaya