A round-up of the latest and best insight on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Will Jones: Labour’s Pro-BBC Censorship Push is Not Based on Evidence
In the UK, Labour Party officials want social media platforms to boost “trustworthy” outlets like the BBC and demote everyone else, on the theory that opaque algorithms are radicalizing the public with misinformation.
At the Daily Sceptic, Will Jones highlights a new Free Speech Union report arguing the evidence for that premise is thin to nonexistent, because the government’s own review leans on citations that don’t survive scrutiny:
They justify each of their measures with the same freedom-chilling argument: that misinformation and disinformation, pumped out to innocent users by malevolent algorithms engineered to monetize extremism, division and hatred, now threaten democracy itself. The narrative has been repeated so often that it has acquired the status of fact. But the evidence suggests it is largely false.
…
In 2024, Nature issued an authoritative review by a team led from the University of Michigan. Its conclusions were the reverse of the Government’s premise. It found that exposure to misinformation and extremist content is low on average and heavily concentrated among a small fringe of users who actively seek it out, rather than coming across it by accident thanks to malign algorithms.
Ashley McCully: Liberal Millionaires: Wait, What Is Free Speech Again?
Macklemore used his opening slot on Ed Sheeran’s tour to tell 80,000 fans at MetLife Stadium that he wanted to say “Free Palestine,” then performed a protest song referencing the war in Gaza. At PJ Media, Ashley McCully walks through the fallout: Patriots owner Robert Kraft barred Macklemore from Gillette Stadium, several other venues reportedly followed suit under similar pressure from Kraft (according to Macklemore’s account of events) and the tour’s remaining opening acts all quit in solidarity.
McCully’s core argument is a distinction a lot of the commentary around this story keeps skipping: the First Amendment protects Macklemore from government punishment for his speech, but it doesn’t obligate a private stadium owner to host it:
This case study in cause-and-effect has nothing to do with the government, so the First Amendment is not in question. Anyone who claims Kraft should have called for and accepted an apology before allowing Macklemore to take the stage neglects to remember that these are performers, and performers say and do things for money — they don't have to mean it to be convincing. A hollow statement written by a publicist and issued on social media? I'm with Kraft: no, thanks.
Josh Pauzé: The ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’: Yet Another Anti-Doxxing Law That Chills Free Speech
Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley built a following filming undercover investigations into alleged fraud at immigration nonprofits and daycare centers. California’s legislature responded with a law called the Safe at Work Act, dubbed by critics the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
The law allows “immigration support services” workers to demand takedowns of posts made with the specific intent to threaten or incite violence against them. Shirley is now suing to block it, arguing the timeline shows it was written specifically to target him.
At Reason, Josh Pauzé notes that an earlier draft would have let workers demand removal of nearly any post that merely “related to” them. Even so, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression warns the narrowed version could still chill lawful, constitutionally protected speech about immigration groups, and could invite frivolous takedown demands that never actually meet the legal bar for incitement:
Shirley outlined his argument in a recent YouTube video, claiming that the legislation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment created in response to him exposing fraud across California. In his suit, he also alleges that it discriminates based on the content and viewpoint of speech and is unconstitutionally “overbroad and vague.”
…
The law, which will go into effect on October 1, 2027, was signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month. The California Legislature claims it’s a necessary measure to protect the immigrant community from increasing incidents of doxxing and harassment caused by the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda. However, some free speech groups are raising concerns about its constitutionality.
In April, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) warned that the legislation could limit “what regular people are allowed to post online about immigrants and the people who help them.” Specifically, under section 6218.19, which FIRE called “the most concerning part of the bill,” immigration service providers could “ban nearly anyone from posting their personal information on the internet.” As FIRE pointed out, “personal information” under the bill could include “anything that ‘relates to’ them.”
Posts can be banned regardless of whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment—they don’t have to incite threats or harassment, or have anything to do with immigration. “That means the provision could facilitate censorship of all kinds of speech the Constitution protects,” FIRE said.
Around X
The Free Speech Union isn’t buying the UK government’s “misinformation” panic, accusing it of trying to slip mass censorship past the public unnoticed.
Dearborn’s mayor turned the Macklemore saga into an offer: a free, city-sponsored concert for the rapper that stadium owners won’t host.
And AOC, not known as a champion of private property or free speech rights, says Robert Kraft declining to host a performer amounts to censorship.
