“If misinformation really were the threat ministers describe, one would expect its footprint to be visible in what people believe.” Labour are planning to build the most restrictive apparatus of speech control since Charles I. The evidence it relies on does not survive contact with reality. In July, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy flounced off X, taking her government department with her, blaming mis- and disinformation for her departure. Weeks earlier, her department had published its green paper, Watch this Space, which suggests platforms be compelled by law to give prominence to “regulated public service media” such as the BBC. Meanwhile, Lucy Powell, Labour’s Deputy Leader, wants platforms brought under “some of the same requirements” of accuracy and balance as licensed broadcasters during election campaigns. Beneath this sits a single document: a 136-page “evidence review”, commissioned by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science) from a seven-person team at Sheffield University. Its authors made no attempt to establish what was actually true or false online. Instead, by their own account, they relied on summaries generated by large language models of 228 academic papers they had not read. More significant is what the review missed. A Nature paper by Budak and her colleagues states that “public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence”. Visits to 490 websites deemed “untrustworthy” made up just 5.9 per cent of Americans’ clicks on news sites; with television included, “fake news” accounts for roughly 0.1 per cent of the average media diet. “This reality,” the authors observed, “is not reflected in public discourse about social media.” Britain has been here before. In July 1637, the Star Chamber of Charles I decreed that nothing might be published without a licence from approved authorities. The Government’s case rests on a review that read nothing, measured nothing, and ignored the research that contradicted it. The case for the most far-reaching apparatus to restrict peacetime speech since the ousted Stuart king amounts to misinformation about misinformation. Read more from FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK in The Critic and his report below 👇

Senior figures at Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, under the command of Andy Burnham, have cautioned firefighters who support Reform UK over their political views. In a further chilling assault on free speech, staff have also effectively been urged in an email to report colleagues who support Reform. Fire brigade bosses have also said they are seeking legal advice on what to do about firefighters who decide to stand as Reform UK candidates. This is despite the fact that, unlike police officers, there is no legal bar preventing firefighters from participating in national or local politics. In their email, fire brigade bosses Mr Petch and Ms Ahmed said: ’We are aware that some staff members have chosen to represent Reform UK in their local areas. We know this may cause concern within our network and wider. ’The individuals involved have been spoken to, to make it clear that as members of GMFRS (Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service) our core values and professional behaviours must be displayed at all times. ’The service is currently seeking formal legal guidance… to ensure we are protected from all perspectives and that our inclusive culture remains safe. ‘Our priority is and always will be ensuring that every member of this network feels supported, respected and safe at work.’ They also confirmed that they would be consulting the Fire Brigades Union on the matter. In his role as Mayor of Greater Manchester, @AndyBurnhamGM — who is also tipped by some to be a future Prime Minister if he wins the Makerfield by-election — is also Greater Manchester’s Fire Commissioner, responsible for overseeing the service. General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, has now written to Mr Burnham to raise concerns about the chilling effect this has on free speech. Lord Young said that the ‘clear implication’ of the email from the fire brigade bosses was that ‘representing Reform UK constitutes an inherent threat to the institution’s culture and values and is to be treated as morally suspect’. He also highlighted that no action appears to have been taken against firefighters who support other political parties. The letter also states: ‘Staff are further invited to report colleagues who support any groups that go against the service’s values, which effectively amounts to an instruction to inform on colleagues for their political beliefs. ’The email will create a chilling effect on the free speech of GMFRS employees who support Reform. ’The practical effect is that a public fire and rescue service governed by you is treating the lawful political activity of your electoral opponents as a reputational risk to their employer. ‘Regardless of whether this reflects your instruction, it reflects your governance; and a public office-holder who permits his institution to demonise or chill the speech and political activity of those who support his principal electoral rival cannot claim to be discharging that office with the impartiality it demands.’ Read more below 👇