The Censors Are Coming

If you think that regimes trying to control their people through suppressing expression the government doesn’t like only happens in “those” parts of the world, think again. From the U.K. and Canada to Australia, the powers that be are steadily promoting their agenda by censoring and punishing contrary views. And the censors are heading our way.

Scotland

The Scottish Parliament enacted the Abortion Services Act in June, creating a 200-meter “safe access zone” around abortion facilities. The law prohibits anyone within this zone from “influencing the decision of another person to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services” or causing “alarm or distress to another person in connection with the other person’s decision” to do so.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Even before any expansion, this is a huge area; 200 meters in all directions covers more than 1.35 million square feet, or 31 acres. That’s the size of the Pentagon, but it’s just a start. The government may extend the zone to whatever dimensions “the operator [of the abortion facility] considers appropriate.”

The speech-free zones examined by courts in this country are much smaller. The Supreme Court upheld a 100-foot buffer zone around abortion facilities in Hill v. Colorado, a 2000 decision that the court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization said had “distorted [our] First Amendment doctrines.” 

In McCullen v. Coakley, the court struck down a Massachusetts law making it a crime to stand on a sidewalk within 35 feet of an abortion facility. And in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, the court upheld a lower court order creating a 15-foot buffer zone around abortion facility entrances but struck down a similar zone that traveled with individual persons.

The Scottish law prohibits acts that are “capable of being seen or heard by another person” and that are either intended to influence, or are “reckless as to whether the act has the effect of” influencing that person’s decision regarding obtaining or providing abortion. But what constitutes an influence upon someone’s decision? Does “influence” mean merely relating to or affecting a decision, or something more significant like actually changing that decision? The law doesn’t say.

Nor does it guide making the important determination whether someone caused “alarm or distress to another person.” Let’s assume that someone who lives within a few blocks of an abortion facility places a sign in the front window of their home that says “Please Let Babies Live.” Staff and potential patients drive or walk by this home on their way to the facility and experience feelings of frustration, anger, or annoyance upon seeing the sign. Does that constitute “distress”? What if those feelings dissipate as soon as the sign is out of sight?

The law’s sponsor, Gillian Mackay, was asked on a podcast whether the law would prohibit someone from standing before their front window with hands together “in that classic position of prayer.” She responded: “That depends on who’s passing the window.”

Canada

Kristyn Wong-Tam, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, introduced the “Keeping 2SLGBTQI+ Communities Safe Act” in April 2023, referring to the “Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex or other sexually or gender diverse community.” This bill would allow the government to designate as a “safe zone” any “place where 2SLGBTQI+ persons gather” and prohibit, within 100 meters of that zone, “distributing hate propaganda,” “making offensive remarks, either verbally or in writing, with respect to matters of social orientation or gender roles,” or engaging in a demonstration “for the purpose of furthering the objectives of homophobia and transphobia.”

The bill allows the government to determine not only the location of a safe zone but the “time during which [it] is designated as such.” While the bill does require the government to “ensure that a list of … safety zones is made available to the public,” that list can apparently change at any time. This zone would be 8 acres in size, rather modest compared to Scotland’s. But the fact that any location in Ontario is a potential 2SLGBTQI+ gathering place and can be designated, undesignated, or redesignated at the government’s discretion means that, as a practical matter, every place is such a place. And the problems multiply from there.

How is the government supposed to determine whether a particular location is the appropriate gathering place and, if it is, for how long? Does “gather” mean a one-time visit or a pattern of meetings? Is spotting a lesbian and a woman identifying as a man walking into a building enough? Does the government need objective evidence of gatherings, or are second- or third-hand anecdotes sufficient?

The bill does not define “offensive” or indicate how to determine it. Nor does it define “social orientation” (a strange term that might actually be a typo) or “gender roles.” For that matter, it does not define “homophobia or transphobia,” what their “objectives” are, or what constitutes a “demonstration” furthering those objectives.

Another provision of the bill states: “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prevents peaceful protests or demonstrations.” Wait, what? Does this mean that this legislation would allow peaceful demonstrations to further the objectives of homophobia and transphobia but not non-peaceful ones? Don’t be surprised if your head hurts by now.

Australia

Rather than targeting undesirable views on specific subjects, legislation introduced in the Parliament of Australia would empower the government to ban whatever it considers “misinformation or disinformation” on any subject. Its stated purposes include “enabl[ing] end-users to better understand the accuracy and credibility of content disseminated using digital communications platforms.” Needless to say, the government claims not only the authority, but the ability, to determine something as subjective as the “credibility of content.”

This bill aims to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to protect Australians “from serious harm caused or contributed to by misinformation or disinformation.” But what, you might well ask, is misinformation or disinformation? Both include “information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive.” Individuals, of course, vary widely in their own knowledge, experience, and judgment. The same information, even if not objectively false, might mislead one person but not another. The government will be the judge.

As if that weren’t subjective enough, the legislation also defines misinformation and disinformation as “reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.”

Here’s where the real agenda may be found. Serious harm includes “vilification of a group in Australian society distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality to national or ethnic origin.” While the bill does not define “vilification,” we all know what it means in today’s ideological climate. Anyone who says, for example, that children are best off being raised by a mother and a father who stay married to each other, would obviously be denounced as vilifying multiple groups on that list.

No one likes to think that bad things can happen in their own neighborhood. This is the United States of America, after all. The Declaration of Independence says that the purpose of government is to secure inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To that end, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court held in 1995 that this includes speech the government considers “misguided” or likely to cause “anguish.” As recently as 2023, the court held that the government may not conscript us “to disseminate the government’s preferred messages.”

That is our heritage, but it will be our future only through the “eternal vigilance” that liberty demands. The censors are on the march around the globe and, as Aragorn warned about the Ringwraiths in “The Fellowship of the Ring,” “they are coming.” In fact, many are already here. We’ve been warned.