I don’t know if this is 100% strictly privacy related but I think it does fall in the sphere of protecting one’s right to express oneself privately.
"Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.
The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.
The proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would significantly suppress freedom of expression."
US did that, too.
For fucks sake, that shit was passed and then either expired or was repealed TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
This level of “Whataboutism” shouldn’t even be possible.
Objection, relevance.
The Alien and Sedition Acts are widely known as some of the worst legislation ever passed in the US, in large part because of the Sedition Act, which was used to suppress speech critical of the Adams administration.
Thankfully it only lasted 2 years. But during that time it sounds like it was a plan to suppress the presidential competition that backfired. It’s good to know that humanity has always sucked.