David Collins: Canada be forewarned. The U.S. is taking free speech seriously

As America levies consequences on the United Kingdom for its free speech transgressions, Canada must see this as a cautionary tale.

Last month, the United States suspended its Technology Prosperity Deal with the U.K. over its crackdown on one of the West’s most fundamental democratic values. The current White House has made it clear — most famously via Vice-President JD Vance’s February 2025 address in Munich — that it resents Europe’s slow rejection of personal liberties like free speech. The U.K. would not listen and is now suffering the repercussions.

As observers from Canada and elsewhere must now be aware, the U.K. has largely abandoned free speech, which, although lacking constitutional protections like in the United States, was very much part of its rich common law tradition. The U.K.’s current Labour government now regularly arrests and even imprisons citizens for posting “offensive” material online. People have been arrested for praying outside abortion clinics, and, in several shocking examples of the country’s “two-tier” policing, protesters who support Israel or who object to asylum seekers being accommodated in luxury hotels are subjected to the full force of the law (less so supporters of Palestine or noisy pro-migration charities).

These shameful developments rightly irritate the Americans, but were probably not the main reason for their withdrawal from the Tech Prosperity Deal, which was designed to accelerate innovation in digital technologies between the two countries. The U.S.’s backtracking from the deal — signed with much fanfare only in September — appears to be tied to the U.K.’s draconian Online Safety Act (OSA).

This controversial piece of legislation — passed in 2023 by a Conservative government and gradually implemented over the past two years — is ostensibly aimed at protecting the public, especially children, from dangerous material posted online. The OSA imposes duties on online platforms and search engines to regulate content, on penalty of fines up to 10 per cent of a company’s annual revenue and the imprisonment of senior managers. The notorious Section 179 carries penalties for posting material or sending messages known to be false with intent to cause “non‑trivial psychological or physical harm” to a “likely audience.” Such astonishingly vague provisions are a serious cause for concern for the U.S. tech giants. A number of prominent figures in the social media space, notably Elon Musk, who owns X, have condemned the OSA for its extra-territorial encroachment on public discourse. Given President Donald Trump’s staunch support for this sector, it’s no surprise he is using the deal as leverage against what his administration must view as the U.K.’s unacceptable overreach.

Linking trade policy to what are arguably non-trade matters, like free speech, exemplifies the “values-based” trade that is often associated with the European Union — which typically mandates that trading partners support human rights and climate-change initiatives. Canada has been no stranger to the practice of wielding trade policy to advance a progressive agenda overseas. The Trudeau government was responsible for adding “progressive” to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The U.S. itself has sought to promote democracy and liberal markets in its trade relations and now regularly includes anti-China clauses in its trade agreements in efforts to carve-up the world into allies and antagonists.

Support for free speech represents a new frontier in the values-based trade rulebook. For many Brits, it is shameful that their country — home of the Magna Carta — would need to be taught a lesson by America in this regard. It will be interesting to see what effect the tech deal’s suspension has on the OSA, although with Labour’s massive parliamentary majority and four years until the next election, it is doubtful U.S. trade pressure will have much effect.

For its part, Canada — which lacks sufficient economic clout — must be wary of the implications of trade negotiations used to score political points. Canada is much more likely to end up a rule-taker, like the U.K., than a rule-maker. On the free speech issue, thankfully Canada has not yet implemented its own online safety legislation. But its Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) was almost passed before Parliament was prorogued last January. That draft legislation was broadly similar to the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, containing provisions that imposed significant fines and criminal liability for posting material online. The bill also aimed to create a dedicated, Orwellian ombudsman to enforce its provisions.

That Canada relies heavily on the U.S. for its economic prosperity scarcely needs to be mentioned. It is vitally important Canada remain on as amicable trade terms as possible with its southern neighbour. It’s also crucial Canada remains supportive of free speech for its own sake — as it is an essential ingredient for an open, prosperous society. The fact that this could improve trade relations with the U.S. is even more reason to avoid following the illiberal route the British have sadly taken.

Special to National Post

David Collins is professor of international economic law at City St. George’s University of London, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.