From crowdsourced Wikipedia entries to public religious expression, the United Kingdom’s speech regulation is drawing alarm on both sides of the pond for its potential and actual effects on shared knowledge and conscience rights at home and abroad.
The U.K. High Court knocked down a challenge to the Online Safety Act by the U.S.-based Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, on the grounds that it must wait for the Office of Communications to actually subject Wikipedia to “Category 1,” which would strip the anonymity underlying its volunteer model for creating and editing entries.
While some observers warn the ruling Monday could lead Wikipedia to go dark in the U.K., the nonprofit looked for the silver lining, noting Justice Jeremy Johnson said Ofcom and the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology do not have “a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia’s operations.”
Swiss-based Proton VPN promoted its “anti-censorship” virtual private network services to circumvent the law, given that the “government could soon be asking its citizens to provide ID to access Wikipedia … Created to ‘protect children online,’ the OSA is increasing censorship for everyone.”
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told BBC Newsnight that “forums for self-help” including a “stop-drinking app” now have to block U.K. users who refuse to identify themselves in line with the law, which he called a “human rights violation” that is not “reining in Big Tech.” He’s also promoting VPNs, or virtual private networks, to circumvent the law.
His co-founder, Larry Sanger, has been a vocal critic of Wikipedia’s alleged capture by the “woke” left for years and has even called for some recourse for people it defames. American conservatives have aggressively targeted it for biased though decentralized editorial decisions such as trashing President Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Hellbound and Down 