
UK Online Safety Act risks ‘seriously infringing' free speech, says X
The social media company said the act's 'laudable' intentions were being overshadowed by its aggressive implementation by the communications watchdog, Ofcom.
In a statement posted on the platform, X said: 'Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression.'
It added that the risk was not a surprise to the UK government because by passing the OSA, lawmakers had made a 'conscientious decision' to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety'.
'It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made,' said the statement.
The act, a bugbear of the political right on both sides of the Atlantic, has come under renewed scrutiny after new restrictions on under-18s accessing pornography and viewing content harmful to children came into force on 25 July.
Musk, X's owner, said days after the rules came into force that the act's purpose was 'suppression of the people'. He also retweeted a petition calling for repeal of the act that has garnered more than 450,000 signatures.
X has been forced to age-restrict some content as a consequence, with the Reform UK party adding to the furore by pledging to repeal the act. Reform's commitment prompted the UK technology secretary, Peter Kyle, to accuse Nigel Farage of siding with paedophile Jimmy Savile, a comment Farage described as 'so below the belt' and deserving of an apology.
Referring to Ofcom, X said regulators had taken a 'heavy-handed approach' to enforcing the act by 'rapidly increasing enforcement resources' and 'adding layers of bureaucratic oversight'.
The statement said: 'The act's laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.'
X said it was compliant with the act but the threat of enforcement and fines – which in the case of social media platforms such as X could be as high as 10% of global turnover – could encourage censorship of legitimate content in order to avoid punishment.
The statement also mentioned plans to create a national internet intelligence investigations team to monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder. X said the proposal may be positioned as a safety measures but 'it clearly goes far beyond that intent'.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
It said: 'This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterise it as excessive and potentially restrictive. A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children.'
A spokesperson for Ofcom said the OSA contained provisions protecting freedom of speech.
They said: 'The new rules require tech firms to tackle criminal content and prevent children from seeing defined types of material that's harmful to them. There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping their users safe.'
The UK's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been approached for comment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
National living wage likely to rise to £12.71 next year, advisory body estimates
The national living wage could rise by as much as 65p an hour next year, an advisory body has estimated, as the terms of its annual review of wage rates were published. Ministers are determined to deliver 'a genuine living wage', according to the Low Pay Commission's (LPC) latest remit for increasing the so-called national living wage – the UK minimum wage for workers aged 21 and older. At the moment, the national living wage is £12.21 an hour. The LPC estimates that this will need to increase to £12.71 in 2026 to not fall below two-thirds of median earnings: the threshold which the Government expects it to stay above. But the LPC acknowledged the national living wage could rise to as much as £12.86 an hour, or as little as £12.55 an hour, depending on changing economic conditions. Founded in 1997, the advisory body provides recommendations to ministers each autumn regarding how it believes the minimum wage should be changed. The Government ultimately sets minimum wage rates for the following April after this advice. A letter from Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the committee must take into account the cost of living as it reviews the national living wage. The two senior ministers insisted the Government was 'committed to ensuring that the minimum wage is a genuine living wage'. They added: 'We continue to recognise that our ambition should be backed by evidence, and that the minimum wage rate should be consistent with delivering inclusive growth for working people and businesses alike. 'We are therefore asking the LPC to recommend a national living wage rate that is at least two-thirds of UK median earnings for workers aged 21 and over, to apply from next April, which takes into account the cost of living, effects on employment and developments in the wider economy.' Elsewhere, the Government is pushing forward with plans to end 'discriminatory' age banding for the minimum wage, and has extended the LPC's remit to examine this. It said the LPC will consult with employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the national living wage and the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, which is currently £10. There is also a minimum wage for those aged under 18, and apprentices, of £7.55. The LPC will report back in October with advice to the Government on how much the minimum wage should rise by in 2026. The Resolution Foundation, a think tank which works to improve living standards, suggested the Government was using 'ambitious language' on increasing the minimum wage, but in reality was adopting a cautious approach. Nye Cominetti, principal economist at the think tank, said: 'Despite the Government's ambitious language around 'delivering a genuine living wage', the new remit for the Low Pay Commission represents a steady-as-she-goes approach to the adult rate, after faster increases in the years preceding 2024. 'This caution is warranted given worrying labour market data, which is thanks in part to the Government's increase in employer national insurance contributions in April.'


BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
What are the rules around police giving out a suspect's nationality?
Ministers have said police should be more transparent about the nationalities of people who are charged. But what exactly are the rules?When a police force in England and Wales arrests or charges a suspect and they are thinking of giving information to the media, they need to have two things in mind: the laws about contempt of court which are designed to make sure suspects have a fair trial, and the College of Policing guidance on media of court laws are quite simple in this context. No-one should make public any information that might make a future trial unfair, for example giving out details of the evidence that police officers have collected. In most cases publishing the nationality of the person charged is unlikely to make the trial unfair, so the contempt of court laws are not often College of Policing guidance is more complicated. Before 2012 police forces made decisions on what information to give to the media on a purely case by case basis. These decisions were often nuanced, but were based on how much that information was considered relevant, and were sometimes simply dependent on the force's relationship with an individual journalist. But after Lord Leveson published his report into the ethics of the press in 2012 police forces became much more cautious abut what information they culminated in the College of Policing guidance on media relations which says that if someone is arrested (but not yet charged) police should only give the suspect's gender and age. The guidance does not say anything about nationality or asylum status at this stage. Once a suspect has been charged the guidance says police can give out information such as the name, the date of birth and the address of the nationality and asylum status are not mentioned, but the guidance says: "The media are aware of automatic reporting restrictions and it is their responsibility to follow them. Any information permitted under such restrictions should be released upon charge, including the following: name, date of birth, address, details of charge, and date of court appearance. "The person's occupation can be released if it is relevant to the crime - for example, a teacher charged with the assault of a pupil at the school where they work."So there is nothing in the guidance that prevents police giving information about that nationality, asylum status or even ethnicity of someone who has been charged. But there is nothing that specifically mentions them Warwickshire Police charged two men in connection with the rape of a 12-year-old girl, the force would not say whether the men were asylum seekers. The force said: "Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status." While this last sentence is true, the guidance does not actually make suggestions one way or another on ethnicity and immigration UK leader Nigel Farage accused the police of a response, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Tuesday: "We do think there should be greater transparency. We do think more information should be provided, including on issues around nationality including on some of those asylum issues."The prime minister's official spokesman had earlier said: "Our position is that authorities, whether it is the police or whether central government, should be as transparent as possible on these issues."In truth, what information should be released to the media is largely at the discretion of the police force. As events in Liverpool in May showed, when forces think it is in the public interest they will release information about a suspect's ethnicity even before they have been charged. When a car ploughed into crowds celebrating Liverpool FC's winning of the Premiership title, Merseyside Police quickly said the man arrested was white and British, in order to quash rumours of a terrorist College of Policing said: "Police forces make challenging and complex decisions on a case-by-case basis and transparency is essential to prevent misinformation and reassure the public."It said that its guidance was "already under review" and that police forces were considering how to balance their legal obligations with "their responsibility to prevent disorder".The issue of what information police can release about a suspect came sharply into focus last summer when Axel Rudakubana was arrested for murdering three young girls, Alice Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in first Merseyside Police did not release any information about him or his religion, which allowed false information that he was a Muslim asylum seeker to spread. Such disinformation was at least partly responsible for last summer's riots. At the time Merseyside Police said it was not giving out more information because of the contempt of court Law Commission has also been looking at contempt of court laws, with a review due to report next month.


The Sun
6 minutes ago
- The Sun
Brussels will ‘punish' Britain for not following its demands as PM's deal pushes UK into clutches of EU, economist warns
BRUSSELS will dole out punishments to the UK for not adhering to its demands, a top economist warns. Eurocrats are pushing Britain into the clutches of the customs union and single market without the ability to make our own rules, Catherine McBride says. The revelation comes after the UK and the EU agreed a new framework back in May on post-Brexit trading arrangements on areas such as farming, defence and trade. The expert insists that new documents outlining the EU Commission's full demands from the reset will see the continent take "retribution" through our current trading relationships. She says this will strip the UK of any ability to foster the latest farming techniques or even import food from non-EU countries. McBride says that the EU Commission will have control all over the UK's agriculture and industrial imports - and also affecting our independent trade policy with the rest of the world. McBride, in a Briefings for Britain article, writes: "The UK government has effectively given the EU a free pass to penalise or, more likely, fine the UK for any transgression. "The EU will be the lawmaker, the policeman and the Judge – there will be no jury." She even echoes comments from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson who said that Sir Keir Starmer was ready to make us the EU's "gimp". When Britain voted to leave the EU it left the single market, customs union and also left the freedom of movement arrangements. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel last night said: 'The stark cost of Labour's EU surrender plan is on full display. 'Keir Starmer and his cronies have bent the knee to Brussels at every turn, and no matter the price the British public will have to pay, and now the EU is coming back for more. 'The Conservatives will always defend the democratic will of this country, and won't let Labour give up anymore of our hard earned sovereignty without a fight.' A Labour source said: 'The report is riddled with nonsense claims. "If the Shadow Foreign Secretary wants to talk about surrender, let's look at how she designed a post-Brexit migration system that was supposed to be controlled, but led to record levels of net migration. "Labour is resetting our relationship with the EU - delivering a new deal that protects jobs, lowers bills, and strengthens our borders." A Government spokesperson said: "Since 2020, British traders and shoppers have faced red tape, rising prices and delivery delays. We set out to fix this with a new partnership with the EU that will add nearly £9 billion a year to the UK economy. 'We will always act in Britain's national interest and have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.'