First of all, there is a real risk that this bill will be used as a political weapon. Take, for example, a recent incident in the House of Representatives, in which Dilan Yeşilgöz, leader of the conservative-liberal VVD party, accused Esther Ouwehand — a member of parliament for the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) — of supporting Hamas because she was handing out pieces of watermelon. This shows just how quickly symbolic gestures can be twisted into alleged support for terrorism.

In addition, the vagueness about what exactly will become a criminal offense leads citizens to censor themselves. Certain messages simply stop getting posted online, out of fear that they might fall under the criteria for criminalization. This is what we call the chilling effect on freedom of expression: people become afraid to speak up.

But journalists and academics who research terrorist networks also face the risk of criminalization because of the bill's vague definitions. As a result, public debate becomes impoverished. We lose not only sharp, critical voices in society, but also the reliable sources who tell us what's really going on.

It's no coincidence that an unprecedented number of people spoke out against this bill during last year's public online consultation (the standard Dutch procedure where draft legislation is published for comment by citizens and organizations). It generated a staggering 11,560 public responses. Organizations such as PAX for Peace, The Rights Forum, and Plant an Olive Tree had already voiced their concerns: will attending a Red Line demonstration soon become a criminal offense?

We at Bits of Freedom have been raising the alarm about this for some time. This bill doesn't stand alone; there are plenty of other legislative proposals with a major impact on our (online) freedom of expression and public debate. For instance, police and mayors would gain additional powers allowing them to intervene directly in the online public debate — without any criminal offense even being involved. A mayor could then order a particular post to be removed, or instruct the police to open an investigation into a citizen based on a social media post, and share that data with, for example, foreign intelligence services. In parallel, the cabinet is preparing a bill that would give the police the authority to gain covert access to closed app groups. These proposals are being handled individually, but their cumulative impact adds up.

What would remain of our online freedom of expression if we knew the police were reading along everywhere, storing your posts and personal data, and opening investigations into you on that basis? How free would we feel to share that we're planning to demonstrate, if that could lead to a police investigation? Would it even be possible to voice criticism online anymore?