[jcranmer]

> The UK also want to do that but they face the enormous obstacle of English-language opinions posted from the USA, which are protected by substantial first-amendment free speech provisions.

That's no obstacle. US laws don't apply to the UK, and the UK already has some heavy-handed internet restrictions that couldn't fly in the US. For example, in the UK, there is a list of child pornography sites that all ISPs are required to block. The internet does make jurisdiction a thorny question, but there are sometimes ways around that (note the old rules on British libel law, which pretty much held that you only had to justify some harm in England/Wales to sue for libel there--e.g., Donald Trump could have sued the New York Times for libel in the UK instead of the US. The UK did tighten up the residency requirements after the US passed a law basically saying "we're not going to cooperate in enforcement of UK libel law").

It's not a matter of English versus non-English. It's a matter of the ability of governments to enforce local legislation.