Is the UK government planning to block X?
In a disturbing development with far-reaching implications for democracy and free speech, a Brazilian judge recently exercised unilateral authority to block X (formerly Twitter) for all users in the country. This drastic measure, coupled with a severe $9,000 penalty for anyone attempting to bypass the ban, was enacted without any public consultation, democratic process, or referendum. It was a decision made with the stroke of a pen—swift, silent, and starkly indicative of how fragile our democratic principles can become when judicial power is wielded without accountability.
Where the separation of powers—a cornerstone of democracy—begins to erode
The actions of the Brazilian judiciary highlight a dangerous trend where the separation of powers—a cornerstone of democracy—begins to erode. When a single judge can unilaterally shut down a platform that serves as a critical space for public discourse, particularly when that platform is used to criticize the government, it signals a potential shift toward tyranny. This is not just an isolated incident in Brazil; it is a stark warning of what could happen anywhere, including here in the UK.
Recently, we’ve seen similar trends in our own country. In the UK, there have been instances where judges have seemingly bowed to government pressure, exercising swift and severe justice in ways that raise serious concerns. Just a few weeks ago, we witnessed judges issuing long prison sentences for offences that, only a week earlier, wouldn’t even have been investigated—such as posting controversial material on X or Facebook. This rapid response from the judiciary followed closely on the heels of warnings from political leaders like Keir Starmer, who cautioned social media companies that they could face bans if they didn’t curb the spread of “misinformation.”
This correlation between government demands and judicial action is alarming. It suggests that the judiciary, rather than acting as an independent arbiter of the law, may at times be used as a tool to enforce the will of the government, especially when it comes to silencing dissent or curbing political opposition. The swift justice we’ve observed in recent weeks could very well be the UK’s version of the same judicial overreach that is currently unfolding in Brazil.
The real controversy: power, not platforms
During a recent discussion on LBC with Matt Frei, we debated the implications of the Brazilian judge’s decision. While Matt focused on Elon Musk and X as the sources of controversy, I argued that the more pressing issue is being overlooked: the alarming power of a civil servant—a judge—to unilaterally shut down free speech, particularly when it targets criticism of the government. This is the real controversy—one that transcends platforms and personalities. It’s about the unchecked power of the judiciary and the dangerous precedent it sets.
Conservatives and those who value democratic freedoms see this for what it is: an overreach by the judiciary that threatens the very foundations of democracy. Liberals, however, seem more focused on Musk and the platform itself, missing the significant threat posed by judicial power being used to silence political opposition. This divide in perspectives is not just ideological; it reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the true risks to our democratic society.
How holding social media accountable is driven by politics, not public protection
For 25 years, I have been trying to hold social media platforms accountable for spreading disinformation. The law is clear on the responsibilities of these platforms, yet enforcing these laws has been nearly impossible. Judges have consistently blocked efforts to make platforms liable for defamation, harassment, or even cases where their services have been linked to self-harm or death. However, when it comes to what the government considers to be “misinformation”—often related to political views and activities—these same platforms suddenly become targets for aggressive censorship and sweeping crackdowns on free speech.
This selective enforcement raises serious questions about the motivations behind such actions. It suggests that judicial power is being selectively applied in ways that serve political ends rather than upholding the rule of law impartially.
The recent actions in Brazil and the troubling trends we’ve seen in the UK should serve as a wake-up call. We are witnessing a dangerous erosion of democratic principles, where the judiciary is being used to legitimize censorship and suppress dissent. This is not just a fight for the future of free speech on social media platforms—it’s a fight for the future of democracy itself.
The independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and the rights of individuals to express dissent and criticize the government must be protected. Anything less risks tipping the balance of power in ways that could undermine the very freedoms we hold dear.