| "Companies, faced with huge fines or even criminal liability for non-compliance, will be incentivised to act in a censorious manner, err on the side of caution and be heavy handed when it comes to removing content," Bukovská said in a statement. Seemingly in an attempt to address those concerns, U.K. policymakers dialed back some of the proposal's original language requiring companies to vet whether even more content could meet the definition of "legal but harmful." Dorries's office touted the change as a "further boost to freedom of expression online" and said that it "removes any incentives or pressure for platforms to over-remove legal content or controversial comments." But it's unlikely to assuage free speech advocates, who argue the entire premise behind that language is misguided at best. These same questions have long puzzled lawmakers in the United States, which has a strong tradition of free expression and adherence to the First Amendment. That makes it tougher to legislate on the issue in the United States than perhaps any other Western country. To get around concerns about U.S. regulators punishing companies for how they handle "legal but harmful" speech, Democratic lawmakers have largely sought to turn to the courts instead. To that end, they have introduced bills that would open tech companies up to more lawsuits over the content they host or amplify by rolling back their liability protections under Section 230. A number of proposals have taken direct aim at content that leads to real-world harm. One bill backed by House Democratic leaders would open companies up to liability if they recommend content to users that contributes to physical or severe emotional injury." Another led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) seeks to open companies up to lawsuits in cases dealing with cyberstalking, harassment or civil rights abuses on their services. But those proposals have run into some of the same concerns from free speech advocates, who argue they would deal a major blow to free expression online. Unlike in the United Kingdom, where some top conservatives have rallied around efforts to curtail "legal but harmful" speech, Republicans in the United States have strongly resisted such efforts. That makes it unlikely that those provisions in the United Kingdom will serve as a major template for bipartisan legislation in the United States, unless the scope significantly narrows. Still, the United Kingdom's plan would mark one of the biggest global experiments in content regulation to date — and both policymakers and industry leaders will be closely tracking to see how officials overseas grapple with these thorny questions. | 
