The new British government took office about a month ago, with a considerable majority, despite having received only 34% of the votes, a situation possible due to the country’s electoral system. Only 9% of the electorate was well-acquainted with the positions of the now Prime Minister. A little-understood leader who became the only alternative to a government that had been in power for 14 years and was showing signs of wear and ineffectiveness in the face of the serious problems the country has been facing.

Among these problems, the immigration issue stands out, which has generated great tensions. Boats loaded with illegal migrants cross the English Channel weekly, resulting in human tragedies, high costs for British taxpayers, and increased social discomfort amid an economic and cultural crisis.

During the electoral campaign, the immigration issue was addressed by almost all parties, but structural solutions were avoided. There is a widespread fear of discussing these issues openly and frankly due to the fear of being labeled and becoming unpopular. When we stop discussing serious problems, they grow until they become catastrophic.

All matters must be discussed openly, seriously, and respectfully. Politicians have the duty to listen to the concerns of the people since public service is the foundation of their existence. When citizens start expressing their discontent, whether properly or disruptively, and the government’s response is to suppress freedom of speech with censorship, imprisonment, and threats, something is profoundly wrong. Instead of seeking order through fear, leaders should seek solutions that meet the needs of the population that elected them.

In the United Kingdom, the land of great defenders of freedom, people of all ages are being criminalized for what they write on social media, under the accusation of "incitement to hatred." The accusation of “hate speech” has been used so arbitrarily that any criticism or protest can be framed in this category, turning into whatever the government wants it to be.

This situation dangerously reminds us of the totalitarian paths that Orwell seemed to warn us about in his "1984."

Portugal must not ignore this warning. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental pillars of a healthy democracy, and its limitation is always a symptom of authoritarianism.

May the historical memory of the Portuguese endure when international examples do not seem sufficient to remind us that freedom of expression is not guaranteed, and its limitation is always a negative symptom in a democracy: During the Estado Novo, under Decree Law No. 12 008 of 1926, the sale or dissemination of information that contained rumor or information capable of disturbing public spirit or harming the State was prohibited. It seems that Salazar only failed in the field of semantics; if he had eventually summarized all this under the virtuous name of "hate speech," he would have gone down in history as an acceptable form of censorship. Today, under the umbrella of its Digital Services Act (DSA), the European Union has taken significant steps to limit freedom of expression, so subtle and little known to the public that we only become aware of its existence when we are invited to rethink what we are posting on META's social networks, or when TIK TOK removes a video from the air for alleged false information.

The warning to Portugal comes from the observation that, as a member of the EU, subject to the DSA, which already represents a strong regulatory force, calls for social media regulation have nonetheless become frequent: The words of the former President of the Assembly of the Republic, Santos Silva, that "social networks are weakening institutions" should sound like a warning. If freedom of expression has limits, then it is not true freedom. No government has the right to interfere with individual thought, but it can certainly silence it through legislation, as the British government is doing.

When the people are silent, they lose the ability to unite and protest, becoming submissive to government actions, no matter how draconian they may be.

The regulation of social media is unacceptable in democratic societies. These platforms are private properties with their own rules, and any victim of cybercrime has legal means at their disposal to seek justice. What cannot be accepted is the penalization for expressing opinions.

Portugal cannot repeat the mistakes of the United Kingdom. It is essential to know our politicians well and what they stand for, and that our rulers and society firmly defend freedom of expression. We must reject any attempt at disguised censorship, no matter how well-intentioned it may seem. It is time to demand transparency, to promote open debates, especially the most difficult ones, and to ensure that all voices are heard without fear of reprisals.

History has shown us that censorship, regardless of the name we give it, never brings stability; it only silences disagreements and postpones problems that will eventually resurface in an aggravated form.

Cláudia Nunes – Presidente of LOLA Portugal

Fellow Young Voices Europe

Author

Cláudia Nunes - Presidente of LOLA Portugal | Fellow Young Voices Europe."

Cláudia Nunes