Compared with many countries around the world, the US is still a great democracy, but a much lesser one than it was four months ago. The constitution has not been rewritten. Checks and balances have not been dissolved. The difference is a president who ignores those constraints, and the impotence of the institutions that should enforce them.Which is the true US, the one enshrined in law or the one that smirks in contempt of law? If the latter, should Britain welcome its embrace as a kindred nation? That is an existential question lurking in the technical folds of a potential transatlantic trade agreement.If JD Vance is to be believed, the prospects ofsuch a deal are looking up. The US vice-president reports that Donald Trump “really loves the United Kingdom”. The two countries are connected by a “real cultural affinity” that transcends business interests.This is a more emollient Vance than the one who earlier this year denounced Britain, alongside other European democracies, as a hotbed of anti-Christian prejudice and endemic censorship. In aspeech to the Munich Security Conferencein February, Vance told his audience that Europe’s greatest threat comes not from Russia or China, but “from within”. He saw a continent in retreat from the “values shared with the United States of America”. Vance returned to the theme whenKeir Starmer visited the White House, rebuking the prime minister for “infringements on free speech that … affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens”.It is difficult to imagine a post-American world. But imagine it we must | Nesrine MalikRead moreThat was a swipe at theOnline Safety Act, which makes social media companies, websites and search engines responsible for “harmful content” published on their platforms. The law had a tortuous genesis between 2022 and 2023. Its scope expanded and contracted depending on what was deemed enforceable and desirable under three different Conservative prime ministers.The version now on the statute book focuses on unambiguously nasty stuff – incitement to violence, terrorism, race hate, encouraging suicide, child abuse images. Technology companies are required to have systems for removing such content. Those mechanisms are assessed by the regulator, Ofcom. Inadequate enforcement is punishable with fines. Refusal to comply can result in criminal prosecutions.That was the theory. The question of how the law should be implemented in practice was deferred. The answer seems to be not much if Britain wants a trade deal with the US.Last month,Ofcom received a delegationfrom the US state department, which raised the Online Safety Act in line with the Trump administration’s mission “to affirm the US commitment to defending freedom of expression in Europe and around the world”. Last week, answering questions from the parliamentary liaison committee, Starmer confirmed thatdiluting digital regulation was on the tablein trade talks when he acknowledged that “there are questions about how technology impacts free speech”. The prime minister also conceded that theUK’s digital services tax, which aims to clamp down on international tech companies avoiding tax by hiding their profits offshore, could be up for negotiation.These demands from the White House have been flagged well in advance. In February,Trump signed a“memorandum to defend US companies and innovators from extortion overseas”. The administration promised to take a dim view of any attempt to raise taxes from US tech companies and any use of “products and technology in ways that undermine free speech or foster censorship”.Regulation that impedes the operation of US digital behemoths – anything short of blanket permission to do as they please – will apparently be treated as a hostile act and an affront to human liberty.This is an imperial demand for market access cynically camouflaged in the language of universal rights. The equivalent trick is not available in other sectors of the economy. US farmers hate trade barriers that stop their products flooding European markets, but they don’t argue that their chlorine-washed chickens are being censored. (Not yet.)That isn’t to say digital communications can be subject to toxicity tests just like agricultural exports. There is wide scope for reasonable disagreement on what counts as intolerable content, and how it should be controlled. The boundaries are not easily defined. But it is also beyond doubt that thresholds exist. There is no free-speech case for child sexual abuse images. The most liberal jurisdictions recognise that the state has a duty to proscribe some material even if there is a market for it.The question of how online space should be policed is complex in principle and fiendishly difficult in practice, not least because the infrastructure we treat as a public arena is run by private commercial interests. Britain cannot let the terms of debate be dictated by a US administration that is locked in corrupting political intimacy with those interests.It is impossible to separate the commercial and ideological strands of Trump’s relationship with Silicon Valley oligarchs. They used their power and wealth to boost his candidacy and they want payback from his incumbency. There is not much coherence to the doctrine. “Free” speech is the kind that amplifies the president’s personal prejudices. Correcting his lies with verifiable facts is censorship.That warped frame extends beyond the shores of the US. It is shared by Kemi Badenoch, who considers Vance a friend. Asked about the vice-president’s Munich speech, the Conservative leader said she thought he was “dropping some truth bombs, quite frankly”. Badenoch’s own speeches consistently fret about the capture of Britain’s elite institutions, especially the Whitehall bureaucracy,by repressive woke dogma.There is a school of militant leftism that is tediously censorious, stretching liberal piety to illiberal extremes, and there always has been. But it is very far from power. Maybe Badenoch ramps up the menace to appeal to a fanatical audience on social media. Perhaps she radicalised herself by reading about it there. Either way, to fixate on campus protest politics as the main threat to western democracy when a tyrant sits in the Oval Office requires an act of mental contortion that, if not actually stupid, does a strong imitation of stupidity.Britain doesn’t have to take instruction on political freedom from a regime that suffocates media independence with bullying and vexatious litigation; that demandsuniversities teach the ruling party’s orthodoxies; that courts dictatorships while sabotaging democratic alliances; that kidnaps and jails innocent people with no regard for due process, thenignores the court rulingsthat say they should be free.These are the “values” that Vance is talking about when he laments that Europe and the US are drifting apart. This is the model of “free speech” that a Trump trading partner is expected to endorse; to protect. Is that the stuff of “real cultural affinity” that earns Britain a deal? Let’s hope not.Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist
In Trumpland, ‘defending free speech’ means one thing: submission to the president | Rafael Behr
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"US Democracy Faces Challenges Under Trump's Administration Amid Trade Talks with UK"
The Guardian
5.9
TruthLens AI Summary
The landscape of democracy in the United States is facing challenges as it grapples with an administration that appears to disregard constitutional constraints. Despite the country maintaining its democratic framework, concerns have emerged regarding the increasing influence of President Donald Trump, who seems to operate with an air of impunity. This raises critical questions about the essence of American democracy: is it defined by the rule of law or by a president who operates above it? The implications of this dynamic extend beyond American borders, particularly in discussions surrounding a potential transatlantic trade agreement with the United Kingdom. JD Vance, a significant figure in the Trump administration, has shifted his tone regarding the UK, now touting a cultural affinity that could favor trade negotiations, despite earlier criticisms of European values and free speech standards. This evolving narrative highlights the complexities of international relations amidst domestic political narratives.
The Online Safety Act in the UK has emerged as a point of contention in these trade discussions, with American officials expressing concern over its potential impact on free speech and the operation of U.S. technology companies. The act mandates that platforms remove harmful content, which has been interpreted by some as an infringement on free expression. The UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer has acknowledged that the regulation of digital services may be flexible in order to facilitate a favorable trade deal with the U.S. However, this raises the question of whether Britain should compromise its regulatory standards to appease a government that often conflates free speech with the interests of corporate entities. The relationship between the Trump administration and Silicon Valley has been characterized by mutual benefit, with the administration defending the interests of tech giants. This situation poses a dilemma for Britain, as it navigates the balance between upholding democratic values and securing beneficial trade agreements, all while contending with an American administration that promotes a narrow interpretation of free speech rooted in self-interest.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article delves into the current political climate in the United States under Donald Trump's presidency, particularly focusing on the implications of free speech and the dynamics of US-Britain relations. It raises critical questions about the nature of democracy in the US and the potential consequences of the government's actions on international agreements and cultural ties.
Political Climate and Democracy
The narrative emphasizes a perceived decline in democratic values in the US, suggesting that while the constitutional framework remains intact, its application is being undermined by presidential disregard for established norms. The author posits a dichotomy between the US as defined by law and the US that operates with contempt for those laws, hinting at a troubling shift in governance.
Free Speech and Legislative Concerns
The article critiques the Online Safety Act in the UK, which places responsibilities on tech companies regarding harmful content. This law serves as a focal point for discussions on free speech, particularly in the context of how American companies might be affected. The author highlights the contrasting views of JD Vance, who has shifted from criticizing Europe to expressing a desire for closer ties with Britain, demonstrating the complexity of political alliances based on shared values or interests.
Implications for International Relations
Through the lens of potential trade agreements, the piece questions whether Britain should embrace a nation that appears to be drifting from its democratic principles. The author implies that the cultural affinity between the US and UK is becoming increasingly strained due to differing approaches to free speech and governance.
Societal Impact
This article aims to provoke thought among readers about the implications of current political trends in the US on international relationships and domestic values. The framing of the discussion suggests a worry that the erosion of democratic norms could have reciprocal effects on allied nations, particularly as they navigate their own legislative challenges.
Manipulative Elements
The language used throughout the piece carries an undertone of alarm, which could be seen as manipulative. By framing the discussion around existential threats to democracy and free speech, the author may be attempting to elicit a strong emotional reaction from readers, encouraging them to reflect critically on the implications of these issues.
Reliability and Trustworthiness
The article appears to be grounded in observations and critiques of current events, making it a reliable source for understanding the political landscape. However, the subjective nature of the language and the focus on controversy may lead some readers to question its neutrality. The overall analysis suggests that the article is a call to action for readers to recognize and react to the implications of current political developments, both domestically and internationally.