A campaign to curb election “disinformation” risks giving the government final say over what truth is allowed online.
CINDY HARPER
A fresh campaign aimed at clamping down on online election speech is reigniting concerns about Britain’s drift toward digital censorship.
The Truth Matters initiative, recently launched by former Labour candidate Praful Nargund, is calling for electoral “disinformation” to be formally added to the Online Safety Act. This law is already heavily criticized for enabling one of the broadest peacetime crackdowns on speech in a Western democracy.
The proposed changes would give the state even more authority to control what can be said online during election periods, under the justification of protecting democracy from so-called harmful content.
But it already sets a dangerous precedent by allowing government bodies and regulators to pressure platforms into silencing lawful speech, effectively outsourcing censorship to tech companies with little transparency or oversight.
Despite these warnings, Nargund and his allies want to go further. He argues that misinformation during his 2024 parliamentary campaign contributed to his loss to independent candidate Jeremy Corbyn, saying he faced a “barrage of disinformation” that created a “climate of toxicity.”
There is already a law in place. Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it a criminal offense to knowingly lie about a candidate.
For obvious reasons and concerns over free speech, enforcement is rare, but the Truth Matters campaign wants new rules that treat online posts about elections as a distinct threat requiring government intervention.
While framed as a bipartisan response to digital disinformation, the underlying logic of the campaign reflects the kind of authoritarian reasoning used by regimes that suppress political dissent under the guise of national stability.
Declaring certain forms of speech as inherently dangerous or harmful opens the door to broader crackdowns on debate, satire, political criticism, and dissent.
The Online Safety Act, which passed despite widespread objections from free speech advocates, allows regulators to pressure tech companies into removing content that may be “harmful.”
That term is so vague that it can easily be manipulated to include controversial opinions or inconvenient truths.
Expanding this framework to cover election discourse would further tighten restrictions around digital speech at a time when democratic participation depends on open and unrestricted discussion.
This article (UK: The Push to Police Election Talk Online) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Cindy Harper
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply