Musk's X: Britain's Internet safety law 'seriously infringes' free speech

UPI

3 days ago

"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," the Global Government Affairs wing of the Elon Musk-owned X said Friday on Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act. Photo by Ismael Mohamad/ UPI | License Photo
Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X said Friday that Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act "seriously" is on the cusp of violating free speech masked as the fight to protect kids from explicit online content.
"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," the Global Government affairs wing of the Bastrop, Texas-headquartered X said Friday.
Britain's Online Safety Act created a new set of legal duties that tech companies must abide by.
It mandated they evaluate the potential of users encountering illegal Internet content and children being exposed to online harm, which included a required safety assessment.
"When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety,'" the letter stated.
The British parliament passed it in September 2023 in the quest to improve online safety for young people.
X argues the British people may not of been aware of the "trade-off" when London passed the bill.
The OSA covers more than 130 offenses ranging from harassment and "assisting or encouraging suicide" to terrorism, fraud and "unlawful immigration." It targets tech entities that spans "social media or video-sharing platforms, messaging, gaming and dating apps, forums and file-sharing sites."
According to the former Twitter, the act's "laudable intentions" were at risk of "being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach."
"While everyone agrees protecting children is a critical responsibility, it is also clear that an overly rigorous statutory framework layered with a 'voluntary' code and heightened police monitoring, oversteps the intended mission," it continued.
On Friday, a British watchdog group indicated that those fears may may be valid.
"The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government's new Online 'Safety' Act," Silkie Carlo, director of Britain-based Big Brother Watch, posted on X.
"Well done lads," she added in jest.
X's government affairs offiec says free speech will suffer without a "more balanced, collaborative approach."
Pornhub and other major pornographic websites had a targeted end of July date to implement its age verification mechanisms in order to comply.
Musk, 54, has characterized himself as a "free speech absolutist."
The former White House DOGE adviser, for his part, has said the act's purpose was "suppression of the people" as he tweeted a petition calling for it's repeal that got more than 450,000 signatures.
OSA's deadline required pornographic websites to implement "robust" age verification methods or face fines close to $20 million or equal to 10% of company proceeds.
X cited British regulator Ofcom how it "to date" had allegedly taken a "heavy-handed approach" to enforcement, which it said included a boost in resources, additional "layers of bureaucratic oversight and signaling an aggressive approach to ensuring compliance."
In a recent Ofcom research study, some 8% of children aged of 8 to 14 accessed a pornography source over a 28-day period. It included 19% boys and 11% of girls from 13 to 14 years old.
In addition to the increased government regulations, X officials also cite Britain's new "National Internet Intelligence Investigations" team unit company officials say "sets off alarm bells" and will further "intensify scrutiny."
The social media company said the Internet teams "sole" focus is to monitor social media for "signs of unrest, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, to prevent real-world violence."
"While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent," the post reads.
"This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterize it as excessive and potentially restrictive."