The United Kingdom’s recent Illegal Immigration Act has been a major cause of concern for both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). The UNHCR’s Fillipo Grandi claims that “this new legislation significantly erodes the legal framework that has protected so many, exposing refugees to grave risks in breach of international law.” The UK government, however, insists that the Act — which was passed in July 202 3— is rooted in good intentions and seeks to deter migrants from taking unsafe passages into the country. Concerns over this issue have been on the rise since November 2021, when 27 migrants died in the English Channel en route to the UK from their pit stop in France. But if the Act aims to mitigate migrant-related tragedies, then why has it been met with such opposition?

The ongoing lawsuit against the Biden Administration involving concerns over First Amendment rights calls attention to the role of online platforms in debates of censorship and free speech. The lawsuit surfaced last year after several individuals claimed they were the victims of online censorship, as the Biden Administration allegedly urged social media platforms to remove certain content. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued an injunction that would restrict multiple government agencies and officials' communication with social media companies such as Facebook and Youtube. The most recent development in this case surfaced on October 20, 2023, when the Supreme Court lifted the injunction imposed by the lower court. Plaintiffs are still waiting on an official ruling, which will not be judged until hearings are held in early 2024. This lawsuit bears the burden of setting a precedent for future cases calling government censorship over online platforms into question. To better contextualize this lawsuit, it is important to examine other relevant case law and statutes addressing the First Amendment and the right to free speech…