How AI could affect free speech
- Details
- Hits: 236
UK speech law and AI
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more common in everyday life, it’s starting to have a real impact on how we communicate online. While AI can help keep the internet safer by catching harmful content, it also raises serious questions about free speech, privacy, copyright, and personal rights. When machines start deciding what we can or can’t say, we need to ask: who sets the rules, and what happens when they get it wrong?
The promise and problem of AI in content moderation
When AI misses the point – what are the legal implications
A case study: Miller v College of Policing
The legal issues concerning deepfakes and AI impersonation
The promise and problem of AI in content moderation
There’s no denying that the internet is flooded with content every second – from tweets and posts to comments and videos. AI tools have become essential for helping platforms like Facebook, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) scan through all this material and remove things like hate speech, child abuse images, or incitement to violence.
Supporters of AI moderation say it's faster, more consistent, and not affected by human emotions. It can apply the same rules across millions of posts, day and night. But even with these strengths, problems are cropping up.
When AI misses the point – what are the legal implications
One of the biggest flaws with AI is that it doesn’t always understand the meaning behind what someone says. Human communication is full of nuance. Sarcasm, irony, satire, political criticism – all these things can confuse an algorithm. Imagine someone making a satirical joke about a political figure. AI might not “get” the joke and treat it as offensive or harmful. That content could be removed or hidden, even though it’s completely lawful.
Over time, this can have a chilling effect. People start to second-guess what they post, not because what they’re saying is wrong, but because they’re worried the system will misunderstand them. This kind of pre-emptive self-censorship can shift online conversations in subtle but powerful ways. AI models like ChatGPT, for example, are built with filters that prevent the use of certain words, ideas, or topics.
These rules are designed to reduce harm, but they also determine which types of speech are seen as “safe” or “unsafe.” As a result, users learn to steer clear of those topics, even if they're important, valid, or protected under the law.
A case study: Miller v College of Policing
The case of Miller v College of Policing is a good example of what can go wrong when authorities overstep. Harry Miller, a former police officer, was contacted by police after he posted tweets about gender identity issues.
Although he hadn’t committed any crime, the tweets were recorded as a “non-crime hate incident.” In 2020, the High Court said the police had acted unlawfully by interfering with his right to free speech. Then, in 2021, the Court of Appeal went further and ruled that the official guidance behind these actions was itself unlawful.
The court said the guidance had too much of a chilling effect on people’s freedom to speak their minds. It’s a reminder that even well-meaning rules can cross a line if they aren’t properly balanced.
The legal issues concerning deepfakes and AI impersonation
AI doesn’t just moderate content – it can also create it. Deepfake technology, which uses AI to generate fake videos or voices, is now good enough to make someone appear to say or do something they never actually did. These fakes can spread quickly and cause serious damage, especially when they target public figures or individuals in sensitive situations. This kind of impersonation raises clear legal and ethical problems.
It can lead to breaches of privacy, reputational harm, and even identity theft. Someone could clone your voice or face using AI, and pretend to be you online. That’s not just a personal concern – it could also be a breach of data protection laws, privacy rights, and in some cases, criminal law.
There’s also the issue of copyright. AI tools that generate content often rely on existing material – books, photos, music, and videos – that belong to someone else. If those materials are copied or remixed without permission, it could amount to a breach of intellectual property rights.
Who holds AI to account?
Another worry is that users often don’t know why their posts were taken down. AI moderation can be a black box – things happen behind the scenes, and there’s little explanation. If your content is removed, you might not be told why, and you may have no clear way to appeal. This lack of transparency undermines trust. People want to know how decisions are made and whether they’ve been treated fairly.
When AI makes those decisions without accountability, it’s easy to feel that your rights are being ignored. From a legal point of view, this raises serious questions about responsibility. If AI wrongly removes content or suppresses certain viewpoints, who is liable? Is it the user who created the content, the company that deployed the AI, or the developers who built the algorithm? Currently, there’s no clear answer. One possible approach is to treat platforms that provide AI moderation tools in the same way as publishers or editors. If they control the rules and have the power to remove or restrict content, they should also accept legal responsibility when that process goes wrong.
That means users should have a right to challenge these decisions, and regulators should have the power to hold platforms to account. There is also a role for lawmakers and courts. The law should be updated to make sure that AI-driven decisions follow due process and respect fundamental rights. Just as public bodies must act lawfully and fairly, tech companies that shape public debate should not be allowed to hide behind algorithms. In short, responsibility should sit with those who control and profit from the technology – not with the ordinary users who rely on it to take part in public life.
The problem of picking sides, even when AI works, it doesn’t always work evenly. Platforms may apply rules more strictly to some views than others, depending on political or commercial pressures.
That’s why transparency and consistent enforcement are so important. People need confidence that AI isn’t being used to silence certain opinions while protecting others. The UK’s Online Safety Act is meant to strike a balance between protecting users and upholding freedom of expression. But many argue that more needs to be done to ensure AI systems are not used in ways that restrict speech unfairly or without proper justification.
Legal rights and safeguards
In the UK, free speech is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That right isn’t unlimited – it doesn’t cover speech that promotes violence or hatred – but it does protect a wide range of views and expressions, even those that some might find uncomfortable or unpopular.
Private companies that run online platforms aren’t public bodies, so they don’t always have to follow the same human rights rules. But as their influence grows, there’s increasing pressure for them to act in ways that are fair, transparent, and accountable. AI has the power to transform how we share and control information. But if we’re not careful, it could also limit our ability to speak freely, protect our identity, or control how our personal data is used.
Whether it’s through hidden algorithms, biased filters, or deepfake impersonations, the risks are real. That’s why we need strong legal frameworks, clear rules, and proper oversight. AI should help us build a safer and more open internet – not one where speech is quietly shaped by machines and decisions are made without explanation. As lawyers, technologists, and citizens, we all have a role to play in making sure the law keeps pace with the technology.
