A new campaign has been launched in the UK to restrict online election debate in the name of “disinformation”. The initiative, called Truth Matters, is the brainchild of former Labour candidate Praful Nargund – and has quickly raised concerns that the government may be about to take the final say on what truth is allowed online.
Nargund’s proposal aims to formally include “election information” as part of the already controversial Online Safety Act. That law has been widely criticised for allowing one of the most sweeping restrictions on freedom of expression in peacetime in a Western democracy.
The state as gatekeeper
The proposal would allow government and public authorities to order online platforms to remove content that they interpret as a threat to “democratic stability” during elections. In practice, this would transfer the power to decide on permitted speech to a joint control mechanism between the state and the tech giants – without clear channels of appeal or transparency.
Such a setup is seen as dangerous because it opens the door to stifling political debate. If content defined as “harmful” can mean any view that deviates from the official narrative, critical journalism, satire and political opposition are easily caught in the crossfire.
The letter of the law is already enough
In the UK, there is already legislation in place which criminalises deliberately lying about a candidate in an election – the Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 106. However, the law has rarely been applied precisely because it restricts the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
According to Nargund, online “disinformation” contributed to his own election defeat to Jeremy Corbyn in 2024, which he describes as having encountered a “climate of toxicity” that he directly attributes to social media distortions. But critics point out that the electoral disappointments of individual candidates should not be used to justify broad restrictions on fundamental rights.
A vague “disadvantage”
The Online Safety Act allows authorities to put pressure on technology companies to remove content that could be interpreted as “harmful”. The term is so loose that it can mean almost any controversial opinion or unpleasant fact.
If the same logic is applied to the electoral debate, the result could be an even narrower public space – precisely when the democratic process requires the widest and freest debate possible.
To “protect” democracy or to destroy it?
During elections, the social debate is inevitably heated and controversial. Protecting this diversity is an essential part of a democratic system. When government starts to define what speech is “safe” and what is “threatening”, it is no longer protecting democracy – it is managing it.
The British example serves as a warning to other countries: the fight against disinformation should not be used as an excuse to build a joint censorship apparatus between the state and big business..
📚 Sources
- Reclaim The Net – UK: The Push to Police Election Talk Online
- UK Government – Online Safety Act 2023
- UK Government – Representation of the People Act 1983, Section 106