The Online Safety Act: A Threat to Political Liberty, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

The UK's Online Safety Act, implemented on July 25, 2025, was heralded as a measure to protect children from harmful online content, such as pornography, self-harm material, and graphic violence. However, as critics warned and recent developments confirm, the Act's broad scope and vague definitions are now being used to censor political satire and dissent, posing a significant threat to political liberty. Reports from The Telegraph and other sources highlight how the legislation is stifling free expression, enabling government overreach, and undermining democratic discourse. This blog post examines the dangers to political liberty emerging from the Act and calls for urgent reform to safeguard free speech.

The Online Safety Act imposes stringent duties on social media platforms and websites to remove content deemed "harmful," with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to £18 million or 10% of a company's global revenue. Section 179 of the Act criminalises "false" statements that cause "non-trivial psychological harm," a definition so vague it encompasses political satire, memes, and critical commentary. This has led to the restriction of content ranging from parliamentary debates on grooming gangs, to videos of public protests, as platforms over-censor to avoid hefty fines.

For instance, The Daily Mail reported that videos of asylum seeker hotel protests were blocked, prompting Reform UK's Zia Yusuf to label the Act "the biggest ever assault on free speech in the UK." Similarly, Conservative MP Katie Lam noted that a clip of her discussing grooming gangs in Parliament was restricted on X for users without age verification, raising concerns that the Act is being used to suppress public interest debates. This overreach extends to private communications, with WhatsApp and Signal warning that the government's demand for access to encrypted chats threatens user privacy.

A particularly alarming feature of the Act is Section 44, which grants a single government minister the authority to direct Ofcom, the UK's media regulator, to impose new censorship rules without parliamentary oversight. This centralisation of power undermines democratic accountability, allowing unelected bureaucrats to shape online discourse arbitrarily. Critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), argue that this risks creating a "digital surveillance state" akin to authoritarian regimes, where dissent can be silenced under the guise of safety.

The Act's enforcement has already led to high-profile cases that highlight its chilling effect. Lucy Connolly, wife of a Conservative councillor, received a two-and-a-half-year prison sentence for a social media post following the Southport killings, and pro-life campaigners like Adam Smith-Connor and Isabel Vaughan-Spruce faced convictions for breaching "buffer zones" near abortion clinics. These cases, monitored by the Trump administration with "great interest and concern," suggest that the Act is being weaponised to target political expression, particularly from conservative voices.

Political satire, a cornerstone of democratic discourse, is under direct threat. The Act's vague definition of "harmful" content allows regulators to interpret sharp-witted memes, sarcastic TikToks, or critical posts, as criminal. This stifles the ability to critique the powerful, a vital function of satire in holding governments accountable. The Guardian reported X's concerns that the Act's design reflects a "conscientious decision" to increase censorship, with Elon Musk calling it a tool for "suppression of the people." A petition to repeal the Act, supported by Musk, has garnered over 450,000 signatures, reflecting widespread public alarm.

BBC Verify found that platforms like X and Reddit are restricting content on issues like the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, even when such posts contain no graphic imagery. This over-censorship, driven by fear of penalties, risks stifling legitimate debate on matters of public interest. Professor Sandra Wachter from the Oxford Internet Institute warned that the Act "was not supposed to be used to suppress facts of public interest, even if uncomfortable."

The Act's implications extend beyond the UK, drawing criticism from the U.S. government. The Trump administration has expressed concerns that it imposes "unfair burdens" on American tech companies like Apple, Truth Social, and X, viewing it as an extraterritorial attack on free speech. U.S. officials met with British pro-life activists in March 2025 to challenge Ofcom's enforcement, signalling potential diplomatic tensions. Domestically, Reform UK leaders Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf have vowed to repeal the Act, arguing it plunges the UK into a "borderline dystopian state."

Even Wikipedia, a platform far removed from social media, faces challenges. The Wikimedia Foundation warned the High Court that the Act's "category one" designation could force it to cap UK users or restrict anonymous editing, risking "gibberish" articles and unchecked misinformation. This illustrates the Act's overreach, affecting platforms not designed for controversial discourse.

Defenders of the Act, including Technology Secretary Peter Kyle and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, argue it is essential for child safety. Kyle cited the conviction of Nicholas Hawkes for cyber-flashing as evidence of the Act's success in combating online predation. Starmer stated that the Act targets "hateful, violent, extreme, misogynistic and pornographic material" to protect children from sites promoting suicide or self-harm. The government insists that free speech is safeguarded, with Ofcom's spokesperson noting clauses protecting expression.

However, these assurances ring hollow when balanced against the Act's broader impact. The removal of the "legal but harmful" clause, as noted by The Telegraph, was a concession to free speech advocates, yet the remaining provisions still enable censorship of legal content. Professor Sonia Livingstone suggested that platforms may be over-blocking to undermine the Act, but this does not negate the law's chilling effect on legitimate speech.

To address the dangers posed by the Online Safety Act, the following steps are urgently needed:

1.Repeal or Amend Vague Provisions: Sections 179 and 44 must be revised to eliminate ambiguous definitions of "harmful" content and ministerial overreach. Clear, narrow criteria for illegal content should replace subjective standards.

2.Strengthen Parliamentary Oversight: Require parliamentary approval for Ofcom's censorship directives to ensure democratic accountability.

3.Protect Encryption and Privacy: Remove demands for backdoor access to encrypted chats, as warned by WhatsApp and Signal, to safeguard private communication.

4.Exempt Public Interest Content: Create exemptions for political satire, parliamentary debates, and protest-related content to prevent stifling legitimate discourse.

5.Independent Review: Establish a bipartisan commission to assess the Act's impact on free speech and recommend reforms, drawing on input from tech companies, civil liberties groups, and the public.

6.Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate citizens about the Act's implications, encouraging engagement in petitions and advocacy to pressure lawmakers for change.

The Online Safety Act, while ostensibly about child protection, has become a tool for censoring political satire and dissent, threatening the UK's tradition of free expression. Its vague definitions, unchecked ministerial power, and impact on private communications risk eroding the democratic principles that allow citizens to critique the powerful. As Zia Yusuf warned, the Act's "Trojan horse" nature masks a broader assault on liberty, with platforms like X and Wikipedia already feeling the strain.

The growing backlash, from Reform UK's repeal pledge to the Trump administration's diplomatic interventions, signals a critical moment for action. Without reform, the UK risks sliding into a digital surveillance state where political liberty is sacrificed for the illusion of safety; really social control. Citizens, policymakers, and tech leaders must unite to demand transparency, accountability, and a return to the principle that free speech is the bedrock of democracy. Already, satire is becoming a crime and dissent a relic of the past.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/26/the-online-safety-act-is-an-assault-on-freedom/