• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Why is the UN Commissioner For Human Rights Trying to Suppress Free Speech on Twitter?

by Dr David McGrogan
22 November 2022 9:00 AM

While there has been a great deal of hullabaloo concerning Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, one would probably not have expected senior officials at the United Nations to find it necessary to have their say on the matter. Yet on November 5th Volker Türk, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, did indeed weigh-in, sending an open letter to Mr. Musk to express his “concern and apprehension” about Twitter’s role in the “digital public square”. He urged Musk to make sure human rights would be “central to the management of Twitter”, and to “address harms” associated with the platform, and also took the time for a bit of finger-wagging at Twitter’s new CEO for sacking Twitter’s human rights team (no, I had no idea it had one either).

The letter was almost certainly only sent so that Türk, who assumed office in mid-October and is a comparative unknown (some UN insiders were apparently hoping for Michelle Obama or Angela Merkel), can get a bit of recognition. But it is instructive nonetheless in giving stark expression to the awkward position which human rights advocates have found themselves adopting when it comes to one of the most salient issues of the day – the regulation of speech online and particularly the subjects of disinformation and misinformation.

This happens in the course of two short paragraphs. Starting off, Türk is keen to emphasise the importance of protecting free speech. Twitter, he notes, is being pressed by governments to take down content or use upload filters, and he urges it in clear terms to “stand up for the rights to privacy and free expression to the full [sic] extent possible under relevant laws”. So, on the one hand, he adopts a strong position against censorship, implying that speech should only be restricted online where it would cross the border into illegality.

Yet on the other hand, in the very next breath, he declares that “free speech is not a free pass” and that the “viral spread of harmful disinformation…results in real world harms”. Therefore, in his view, Twitter must take responsibility to “avoid amplifying content” that results in harms to people’s rights – whether or not, by implication, it is technically legal. Hence, for example, scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines, legally expressed, ought nonetheless to be supressed given the impact it might have on the right to health.

This can only be described as cakeism. For Türk, it is apparently desirable both to protect freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible under the law, and yet also to restrict lawful speech where it might result in ‘harms’. It is easy to see the appeal in the abstract of the idea that these positions can be reconciled, and Türk indeed concludes his letter by suggesting that “our shared human rights offer a unifying way forward”. But it is difficult to see from its content how this could be so. Does Türk believe that freedom of speech should be protected insofar as it is possible to do so? Or does he believe lawful speech should be suppressed to prevent harm? He can believe in one, but he surely cannot coherently believe in both.

The wider point is that human rights advocates like Türk have rather lost faith in their own model. For decades, it has been orthodox human rights doctrine that all human rights are, in UN-speak, “indivisible and interdependent”. The rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination, health, food, housing, education, and so on, all support one another and, indeed, cannot properly be enjoyed without the others. It is therefore not only possible to secure (say) freedom of expression and the right to health – they actually bolster each other.

The rationale for this can be readily understood: if freedom of expression is secure, then people will have access to the full range of information and opinion available on any given topic, and therefore policymakers, healthcare providers, doctors and patients will be able to make better health-related decisions than they would otherwise. There is therefore a direct link between securing freedom of speech and the right to health. (And conversely, of course, securing the right to health means increasing opportunities for people to express themselves freely – one will find it much easier to actively participate in public discourse if one is in good health than not.) What is true in this example is true across the round, and the orthodox position in the UN human rights system has long been that these mutually-supportive linkages can be found throughout the human rights corpus.

This is not, however, the position that Türk adopts in his letter. To reiterate, for the new High Commissioner, freedom of expression and the right to health are not in fact “indivisible and interdependent”, but incommensurate. If people are able to express themselves freely, they will circulate dangerous disinformation about vaccines, and harm will result. Freedom of expression does not reinforce the right to health; it undermines it.

Türk is no loose cannon. As short as his letter to Musk is, it essentially summarises the position adopted in a recent report to the UN General Assembly by the Secretary-General himself. This report manages somehow to express a robust defence of the “right to hold opinions without interference” and an insistence that “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues… is essential”, while at the same time advocating for state intervention to prevent the spread of inaccurate information concerning “public health, electoral processes or national security” and the demonetisation of legal-but-harmful content. The same schizophrenic attitude is adopted as in Türk’s letter, but the message is clear enough: while it is necessary to pay lip service to the importance of freedom of expression, the system as a whole now disavows the “indivisible and interdependent” doctrine, and instead sees freedom of expression as being potentially antagonistic to other rights.

What are we to make of this? The clue is in the types of harmful inaccurate information that both Türk and the Secretary-General identify as particularly dangerous and hence warranting state suppression – i.e., those implicating public health, electoral processes and national security. It is no accident that these subjects map pretty closely to the issues that are of greatest concern to the global bien pensant class in which these figures are so firmly entrenched – Covid vaccines, ‘election denialism’, and Russian disinformation. And it is not really a great surprise that when the chips are down and the consensus within that class is that oppositional views on those topics represent a genuine threat, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General suddenly find that freedom of expression is not so “indivisible and interdependent” with respect to other rights at all. Indeed, it is to be sacrificed where those particular concerns are raised. Human beings, as we know, can be remarkably flexible on points of principle when peer pressure is applied – even, it turns out, senior human rights lawyers and UN Secretary-Generals.

More broadly, if one were being especially cynical, one might say that this is further evidence supporting the long-term criticism of the international human rights system – that it is essentially a forum for pharisaical expressions of right-on opinions which vary in accordance with whatever the ‘current thing’ is. This would not be entirely fair – the UN human rights organs do very important work – but it is sometimes easy to see how this view proliferates. Türk’s letter is suggestive not so much of a commitment to the letter of human rights law, but rather only to the contemporary concerns of a particular elite constituency. This in turn indicates that the UN human rights apparatus as a whole is geared more toward addressing the anxieties of that constituency than it is towards standing up for human rights across the board. Is it any wonder, then, that ordinary people generally take a sceptical view about human rights in the round?

Dr. David McGrogan is Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.

Tags: DisinformationHuman rightsMisinformationUNVolker Türk

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

“Disturbed and Alarmed”: 66 Doctors, Clinicians and Scientists Call for Stop to Covid Vaccination of Pregnant Women Over Serious Safety Concerns

Next Post

Summer Temperatures in Canada Have Been Massively Exaggerated Since 1978

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

Special Episode of the Sceptic: Charles Cornish-Dale on Testosterone Decline, How the Modern World Is Making Us Sick and How to Save the West

by Richard Eldred
11 July 2025
1

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

13 July 2025
by Will Jones

Man Who Threatened Muslims With a ‘Boycott’ if They Cooperated With South Yorkshire Police’s Inquiries Into Rotherham’s Grooming Gangs Given MBE for Promoting ‘Integration’ and ‘Cohesion’

13 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

13 July 2025
by Laurie Wastell

German Greens Demand Price Controls on Ice Cream Because Their Own Policies Have Made it Unaffordable

13 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Why Are We Funding ‘Breastfeeding Men’?

13 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

News Round-Up

32

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

21

Man Who Threatened Muslims With a ‘Boycott’ if They Cooperated With South Yorkshire Police’s Inquiries Into Rotherham’s Grooming Gangs Given MBE for Promoting ‘Integration’ and ‘Cohesion’

19

Water Companies Use Smart Meters to Impose Surge Pricing During Heatwaves

42

Why Are We Funding ‘Breastfeeding Men’?

18

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

13 July 2025
by Laurie Wastell

German Greens Demand Price Controls on Ice Cream Because Their Own Policies Have Made it Unaffordable

13 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Emergency Exit at English Heritage

12 July 2025
by Mike Wells

Over-Labelling Children With ‘Special Needs’ has Failed a Generation

12 July 2025
by Mary Gilleece

How Much Does Cancel Culture Harm Academics’ Careers?

12 July 2025
by Noah Carl

POSTS BY DATE

November 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Oct   Dec »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

November 2022
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Oct   Dec »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

News Round-Up

13 July 2025
by Will Jones

Man Who Threatened Muslims With a ‘Boycott’ if They Cooperated With South Yorkshire Police’s Inquiries Into Rotherham’s Grooming Gangs Given MBE for Promoting ‘Integration’ and ‘Cohesion’

13 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

13 July 2025
by Laurie Wastell

German Greens Demand Price Controls on Ice Cream Because Their Own Policies Have Made it Unaffordable

13 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Why Are We Funding ‘Breastfeeding Men’?

13 July 2025
by Richard Eldred

News Round-Up

32

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

21

Man Who Threatened Muslims With a ‘Boycott’ if They Cooperated With South Yorkshire Police’s Inquiries Into Rotherham’s Grooming Gangs Given MBE for Promoting ‘Integration’ and ‘Cohesion’

19

Water Companies Use Smart Meters to Impose Surge Pricing During Heatwaves

42

Why Are We Funding ‘Breastfeeding Men’?

18

Raw Egg Nationalist: “Reproduction May Become Impossible”

13 July 2025
by Laurie Wastell

German Greens Demand Price Controls on Ice Cream Because Their Own Policies Have Made it Unaffordable

13 July 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Emergency Exit at English Heritage

12 July 2025
by Mike Wells

Over-Labelling Children With ‘Special Needs’ has Failed a Generation

12 July 2025
by Mary Gilleece

How Much Does Cancel Culture Harm Academics’ Careers?

12 July 2025
by Noah Carl

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment