One after another, left-leaning governments have begun tightening their grip on speech. Not hate speech, not threats, not incitement — but speech, plain and simple. Opinions. Posts. Criticism.
In the past, censorship was something we associated with authoritarian regimes. Today it’s coming from governments that loudly celebrate “democracy,” “openness,” and “tolerance”… while quietly rewriting laws to decide which opinions citizens are allowed to express.
And it’s not just happening in one country. A pattern is emerging — Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and the EU — all moving in the same direction, all insisting it’s “for your safety.”
Someone needs protecting, that’s for sure — but it’s not the public. It’s the governments.
The UK: Jail Time for Tweets
The UK has some of the most aggressive speech-restriction laws in the Western world. Under the Communications Act and the Public Order Act, people have already been arrested, charged, and in some cases jailed for:
-
Posting “offensive” jokes
-
Misgendering someone
-
Uploading song lyrics
-
Sharing political criticism judged to cause “distress”
Police even warned citizens that “being offensive is an offence.” (Yes, that really happened.)
The new Online Safety Act goes even further — social media platforms must remove “harmful but legal” content or face massive fines. In other words: speech that is legal may still be banned. And if the platforms don’t throttle it, the government punishes them.
This is no longer about policing crime.
This is policing ideas.
Australia: The eSafety Commissioner and the Expanding Censorship Machine
Australia now finds itself at the centre of a free-speech storm thanks to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant — a bureaucrat with extraordinary powers to order global companies to take down posts she considers “harmful.” Not illegal, not criminal — just “harmful,” defined by her.
Recently, she imposed takedown demands on social media companies, at one point ordering them to blanket-block worldwide content because she believed Australians shouldn’t see it. When the platforms resisted, she escalated.
And now, ironically, it’s the United States stepping in to tell Australia to stop censoring Americans.
A recent Sky News discussion captures the tension perfectly. Here’s a key excerpt from aAndrew Bolt in his recent critique, (the full video is reproduced below.):
“…the only people who could save us from this insanity would be the Americans and that it would be the Trump administration who would ride to our rescue…
the Trump administration will not tolerate its allies… trampling all over Americans’ free speech, the First Amendment. They made it crystal clear.”
The discussion goes on to describe the chaos surrounding Australia’s incoming under-16 social-media ban, which even the government cannot explain, and which the eSafety Commissioner herself cannot defend under Senate questioning.
This is the hallmark of censorship regimes: sweeping powers, vague rules, and bureaucrats who can’t explain what they’re enforcing.
Canada: Trudeau’s War on Online Speech
Canada’s Bill C-11 and C-18 were the first warning shots — empowering regulators to control what Canadians see online and forcing platforms to boost government-approved content.
But what came next was worse: Bill C-63, the “Online Harms Act,” which creates:
-
A digital “speech regulator”
-
Criminal penalties for “hate” defined so broadly it can include political criticism
-
Pre-crime speech laws — yes, Canadians can be punished for speech they might commit
Even lifelong Liberal supporters have warned that the bill transforms Canada into a “soft authoritarian” state.
New Zealand: Regulating Wrongthink
Under Ardern, NZ pushed the “Christchurch Call,” urging global censorship of “extremist content.” But like all these initiatives, “extremist” soon expanded to mean “content the government doesn’t like.”
The government now works directly with platforms to remove posts considered “harmful” — another subjective definition that conveniently includes criticism of the government.
Why Is This Happening?
It’s no mystery.
Left-leaning governments worldwide are adopting the same mindset:
-
Criticism is destabilising.
-
Social media spreads criticism quickly.
-
Therefore, social media must be controlled.
They rarely say this out loud. Instead, they invoke:
-
“Safety”
-
“Disinformation”
-
“Community harm”
-
“Extremism”
-
“Misinformation”
These words are the Trojan horses of censorship.
The goal is not to protect democracy — it’s to protect those in power from democratic scrutiny.
And the more unpopular their policies become, the more aggressively they try to control the conversation.
The United States Throws a Lifeline
Ironically, the country many progressives love to scold — the U.S. — is now acting as the last major bulwark against global censorship.
Why?
Because unlike Australia, the UK, NZ, or Canada, the U.S. has the First Amendment — a constitutional brick wall preventing government control of political speech.
The incoming Trump administration has already warned allies, including Australia and the EU, that they must not censor Americans online. U.S. officials have made it “crystal clear” that they will not tolerate it.
This pressure is now the only meaningful obstacle slowing the spread of censorship laws worldwide.
Thank goodness for that.
Conclusion: Democracy Cannot Survive Without Dissent
Censorship doesn’t appear all at once — it creeps.
First “extremism,” then “disinformation,” then “harm,” then “offence.”
Soon, simply disagreeing with the government becomes dangerous.
That’s the direction much of the Western world is now heading — and it should alarm anyone who values open society.
But there is hope. Pushback is growing, and for the first time in years, the world’s most powerful defender of free speech — the United States — is applying pressure in the right direction.
And not a moment too soon.
Here is Andrew Bolt's recent video covering the US attempt at protecting the free speech of Americans from actions by Australia's eSafety Commissioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment