Exposing the Global Censorship Web: How Governments Are Silencing Dissent Across Borders

by GreenMedInfo Research Group

In a world where speech control is rapidly becoming a multilateral effort, new revelations from America First Legal (AFL) have uncovered a growing global network of governments, tech companies, and international organizations working together to silence dissent across borders.

The UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU), along with the G7, NATO, and other international bodies, are at the center of this operation. The CDU’s role in providing a censorship template to the Biden-Harris administration is only one example of how this coordinated effort extends far beyond national borders. Additionally, the documents highlight the involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as part of these multilateral agreements, raising serious concerns about the international criminalization of speech.

Quick Summary:

• The UK Counter Disinformation Unit leads a global effort to suppress speech, in partnership with organizations like the G7, NATO, and ICC.
• America First Legal (AFL) documents reveal how international organizations and governments collaborate to create a global censorship regime.
• Third-party data processors like Microsoft and AWS introduce privacy risks as cross-border data sharing becomes more common in global censorship efforts.
• The Biden vs. Missouri case reaffirms the Counterspeech Doctrine, a hopeful reminder that open dialogue is the true solution to disinformation, not global censorship.

The Counter Disinformation Unit: A Global Censorship Hub

The UK’s Counter Disinformation Unit (CDU) is a cross-departmental body that leads the government’s response to disinformation by working closely with tech companies and international partners. The CDU plays a crucial role in crafting a coordinated response to perceived online threats, often involving direct relationships with social media companies to flag and remove content.

The CDU’s reach is not limited to the UK. Leaked documents show that the UK Foreign Office works alongside the CDU to collaborate with other nations, especially the U.S. Department of State, to share strategies, tactics, and censorship frameworks. This international partnership extends to left-wing authoritarian governments that are actively working to create a global system to suppress online speech.

The CDU’s partnerships also involve “trusted flagging relationships” with social media platforms, giving the UK government and its allies the ability to directly request the censorship of specific posts and accounts. The documents show that these requests often extend beyond the UK’s borders, affecting global discourse.

A Multinational Network of Government Censorship

The AFL documents expose a wide-ranging international collaboration on disinformation that involves the G7, NATO, and other multilateral institutions. These bodies are not just passively observing disinformation; they are actively participatingin the creation of frameworks that allow governments to control narratives on a global scale.

Most notably, the involvement of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in these multilateral agreements raises new concerns about the potential criminalization of dissenting speech. The ICC, which is typically involved in prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, now finds itself part of a broader international effort to suppress disinformation, potentially allowing governments to frame certain speech as a criminal act under international law.

At the heart of this effort are interagency meetings between nations, such as the U.S. and the UK, where censorship techniques are shared and adapted for use in other countries. For example, the U.S. held meetings with UK officials to learn from the CDU’s approach to COVID-related speech censorship, a coordination that has led to increased suppression of dissenting voices during the pandemic.

Multilateral organizations like NATO, the ICC, and the G7 provide additional layers of coordination, ensuring that the tools and strategies used to combat disinformation are standardized across member nations. This raises significant concerns about the ability of citizens in these countries to exercise their right to free speech without fear of retribution or censorship.

Third-Party Processors: A Major Privacy Vulnerability

While governments claim to be transparent about their efforts to combat disinformation, the use of third-party data processors like Microsoft and Amazon Web Services (AWS) introduces significant risks to data privacy. These companies provide the infrastructure that hosts and analyzes vast amounts of personal data collected from social media platforms, and the involvement of these processors adds a layer of opacity to the entire censorship process.

With data often being transferred across borders, there is a real risk that personal information could be shared with international bodies like NATO or the ICC, or even private-sector partners in other countries. This cross-border data sharing is not adequately controlled, and the public remains largely unaware of the extent to which their data is being analyzed and shared. In some cases, this could include political opinions or medical data, raising serious concerns about how this information might be used in the future.

Extraterritorial Censorship and Extradition: A Global Threat

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this international censorship network is the introduction of extraterritorial enforcement measures. The UK’s Online Safety Actis a prime example, as it includes provisions that allow the UK government to enforce its censorship laws on individuals and platforms outside its borders. This means that individuals in other countries could be prosecuted or even extradited to the UK for violating disinformation laws, even if their speech is protected under their own country’s laws.

The AFL documents highlight how these extraterritorial provisions are being discussed and potentially adopted by other countries, creating a global censorship regimethat can silence dissent regardless of where it originates. The coordination between NATO, G7 nations, the ICC, and the EU suggests that these extraterritorial measures could soon become the norm, threatening the ability of individuals around the world to speak freely.

The G7, NATO, and Beyond: A Coordinated Global Strategy

The G7, NATO, and other international institutions are not passive actors in this effort–they are actively coordinating with national governments to establish a global standard for speech control. By sharing tactics, data, and legal frameworks, these institutions are working to create a world where dissent is systematically suppressed, regardless of national borders.

• G7 Involvement: The G7, representing some of the world’s most powerful economies, has been a vocal advocate for regulating disinformation online. Through joint statements and initiatives, the G7 nations are aligning their policies to ensure that disinformation is swiftly identified and removed across member states.
• NATO’s Role in Disinformation Control: NATO, traditionally a military alliance, has increasingly turned its focus to information warfare. Through its StratCom division, NATO is actively involved in monitoring and countering disinformation, with a particular focus on health-related narratives and public dissent. By coordinating with member states and international partners, NATO plays a key role in shaping the global censorship agenda.
• International Criminal Court’s New Role: The involvement of the ICC in these efforts is especially concerning. Traditionally tasked with prosecuting the world’s most serious crimes, the ICC’s involvement in these disinformation agreements raises questions about whether speech crimes could be elevated to international criminal offenses, further eroding the line between free speech and criminal behavior.

Hope in Counterspeech: The True Answer to Global Censorship

Amid the growing concerns over global censorship networks revealed by America First Legal, a glimmer of hope has emerged from the Biden vs. Missouri case. This pivotal legal movement reaffirms the Counterspeech Doctrine–a principle that has long stood as the ultimate defense against unwanted speech. As articulated by Justice Louis Brandeis nearly a century ago, the solution to “bad” or “misleading” speech is not censorship but more speech. The latest legal discussions remind us that open dialogue and debate remain the most powerful tools in the fight against misinformation, not the heavy hand of government suppression.

The Biden vs. Missouri case has ignited critical discussions about the role of government in regulating online speech. While government pressure on tech companies to remove content during the COVID-19 pandemic came to light, it has also strengthened a counter-movement in defense of free speech. This case sheds light on how, rather than censoring speech, governments should encourage counterspeech–allowing differing views to exist and be challenged in the public sphere.

The Power of Counterspeech: A Legal and Ethical Imperative

The Supreme Court has long upheld the Counterspeech Doctrine, reiterating that the best remedy for harmful or unwanted speech is more speech, not enforced silence. In the landmark ruling in Biden vs. Missouri, the principle was reaffirmed, emphasizing the importance of protecting free dialogue rather than suppressing dissent.

The doctrine encourages platforms to foster open discourse, allowing communities to correct and challenge misinformation through engagement, rather than through the coercive tactics of global censorship networks. One example of how this can be done effectively is X’s (formerly Twitter) Community Notes, where users can add context to posts, ensuring that a diversity of viewpoints is represented and fact-checked by a broader audience. This feature reflects the spirit of counterspeech by creating an environment where free speech thrives alongside fact-checking, without the need for authoritarian censorship.

Why Counterspeech, Not Censorship, Is the Solution

• Protecting Free Expression: Censorship curtails the free flow of ideas, silencing dissent and preventing meaningful debate. Counterspeech, however, promotes open discussion and allows truth to emerge through vigorous public discourse.
• Building Resilience in Public Discourse: When individuals and communities are given the tools to challenge misinformation directly, they become more engaged and informed, leading to a healthier and more resilient public dialogue.
• Safeguarding Democracy: The imposition of global censorship frameworks threatens to erode the democratic principles of free speech and accountability. Counterspeech, by contrast, strengthens democracy by ensuring that all voices–whether mainstream or dissenting–can be heard and evaluated by the public.

The revelations about international coordination to suppress online speech, while troubling, highlight the critical need to return to the Counterspeech Doctrine as the guiding principle in addressing disinformation. By fostering environments of open debate, platforms and governments alike can empower citizens to evaluate information on their own terms, reinforcing the pillars of free expression rather than undermining them.

Conclusion: The Global Assault on Free Speech

The revelations from America First Legal have exposed the deep coordination between governments, tech companies, and international institutions to create a global regime of censorship and criminalization. Governments, tech companies, and international organizations are working hand-in-hand to criminalize dissent, using multilateral agreements, the ICC, and third-party processors to do so with minimal public scrutiny.

The use of extraterritorial laws, such as those found in the UK’s Online Safety Act, poses a direct threat to free speech worldwide. By aligning their legal frameworks and coordinating enforcement, governments are creating a global system where individuals can be punished for speech that is considered harmful in one jurisdiction, even if it is protected by law in another.

However, the Biden vs. Missouri case serves as a powerful reminder that the Counterspeech Doctrine remains the true solution to unwanted speech. By promoting open discourse, platforms can empower individuals to evaluate information and challenge misinformation directly. The combination of international censorship partnerships, vulnerabilities in third-party data processing, and extraterritorial enforcement threatens to erode the fundamental rights of individuals across the globe, but the doctrine of counterspeech offers hope for preserving free expression in the face of these global threats.

© September 2024 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

References

1. America First Legal, “CDC Disclosures Reveal Foreign Government Involvement in U.S. Censorship Efforts,” America First Legal, accessed September 17, 2024.

2. United Kingdom, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, “National Security Online Information Team: Privacy Notice,” last updated April 16, 2024.

3. Reclaim the Net, Behind Closed Doors: The UK and US Plot Global Speech Crackdown, accessed September 17, 2024.

4. UK Government, “UK Online Safety Act 2023,” accessed September 17, 2024.

5. GreenMedInfo, “Setting the Record Straight: CCDH Lied, People Died,” accessed September 17, 2024.

6. NATO StratCom Centre of Excellence, “Information Warfare and the Global Disinformation Battle,” accessed September 17, 2024.

7. UK Parliament, “The Role of the Foreign Office in Global Disinformation Efforts,” accessed September 17, 2024.

8. America First Legal, “AFL Files Lawsuit Against Biden Administration Over Global Disinformation Network,” accessed September 17, 2024.

9. International Criminal Court, “Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,” accessed September 17, 2024.