The UK's Digital Cage: How The Online Safety Act Created Techno-Tyranny скачать в хорошем качестве

The UK's Digital Cage: How The Online Safety Act Created Techno-Tyranny

Argues the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) is a blueprint for global digital tyranny. Analysis covers: Structural Legal Failure: How parliamentary sovereignty, unlike the US First Amendment, allows unchecked legislative power, enabling the OSA's overreach. Weaponization of Safety: How the Human Rights Act's proportionality test is inverted, using public safety as a justification to dismantle free expression. Inversion of Liability: The duty of care model forces platforms into pre-emptive censorship (precautionary principle) to avoid catastrophic fines, deputizing them as state agents. Vagueness as a Tool: Ambiguous terms like harm prevention are used to create a moving goalpost for censorship, adaptable to political needs. Economic Deterrence: Personal criminal liability for tech managers stifles innovation, deters investment, and entrenches monopolies. The Police State Shift: The rise of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) demonstrates a pivot to policing online speech over actual crime, creating a pre-crime system based on subjective perception. Argues that the United Kingdom is rapidly transitioning into a digital surveillance state through the implementation of the Online Safety Act (OSA), which serves as a blueprint for global techno-tyranny. Main Claim: The UK's Online Safety Act, enabled by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the absence of a robust constitutional free speech defense, is systematically dismantling free expression and creating a permission-based internet, resulting in a chilling effect on speech, economic stagnation, and the weaponization of law enforcement against wrong-think. Logic: 1. Structural Legal Deficit: Unlike the US, the UK operates under parliamentary sovereignty, meaning Parliament can pass any law, and courts cannot overturn primary legislation based on fundamental rights like the First Amendment. This structural difference allowed the OSA to metastasize rapidly. 2. Weaponization of Proportionality: The UK's Human Rights Act allows freedom of expression to be restricted for legitimate aims (e.g., public safety, prevention of disorder). The OSA frames censorship as a safety measure, giving the government the moral high ground in the proportionality test, allowing broad restrictions on speech. 3. Inversion of Liability (Duty of Care): The OSA shifts liability from the user to the platform by imposing a duty of care. Platforms must proactively monitor, filter, and remove content deemed harmful (not just illegal) to avoid massive fines (up to 10% of global turnover). This forces platforms to over-censor (the precautionary principle) and deputizes them as state censors. 4. Vagueness as a Feature: The OSA uses vague terms like harm prevention and social cohesion, which lack strict legal definitions and can be politically manipulated to silence dissent without passing new laws, simply by updating guidance on what constitutes harm. 5. Economic Deterrent (Managerial Liability): The OSA includes provisions for personal criminal liability for senior managers who fail to comply with safety duties. This uninsurable risk deters investment in UK tech startups, leading to economic stagnation and regulatory capture, as only large incumbents can afford the compliance costs. 6. Police State Shift (Non-Crime Hate Incidents): UK police are prioritizing the policing of online speech over physical crime. The mechanism of the Non-Crime Hate Incident (NCHI)—recording an incident based entirely on a person's perception of hostility, even if no crime occurred—creates a system of pre-crime and bureaucratic punishment. This record can appear on background checks, effectively blacklisting individuals from certain societal roles for subjective wrong-think.