Online Safety Act threatens free speech, says Elon Musk's X
The company published a post on X titled 'What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach' criticising what it saw was a triple-pronged attack on free expression.
The post 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.'
Ofcom was taking an 'aggressive approach' to enforcement, X said, at the same time as publishing plans to force companies to take down hate speech proactively, which it called a 'double compliance' burden.
A national police unit proposed by the Home Office to monitor social media for signs of unrest 'has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterise it as excessive and potentially restrictive', the company claimed.
A political row has broken out over the act, which introduced measures to protect children last week.
A video of a speech in parliament by the shadow Home Office minister, Katie Lam, about sexual crimes committed by grooming gangs was restricted on X after being flagged as 'harmful content'.
Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party have painted it as 'dystopian' legislation and vowed to repeal the laws.
Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, said that Farage was siding with predators like Jimmy Savile. Kyle and Ofcom have also come under pressure from US Republicans this week, who have been in the UK to express their concerns about the act's impact on free speech.
Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called the act 'the UK online censorship law'. He also published communications from the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to social media platforms during the Southport riots last year that expressed concerns about the use of the expression 'two-tier policing'.
X said that the act 'is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression' and parliament 'made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of online safety'.
It claimed the act's measures 'prevent adults from encountering illegal content and steps to ensure age verification that limit adults' anonymity online'. Ofcom denies this.
In the wake of the Southport riots, Ofcom proposed measures that would require social media platforms to remove hate speech from feeds. Platforms that are at high or medium risk of carrying hate speech would take it out of algorithmic feeds if it is potentially illegal. X called this a 'double compliance' burden on top of the act.
Ofcom admitted the proposal 'has the potential to interfere with users' rights to freedom of expression and association.'
Diana Johnson, the Home Office minister, last week proposed a national police unit that would monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder.
PATRICK PLEUL/REUTERS
X said: 'While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent.'
The company said 'a balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children'.
While the X post was not attributed to Musk, he retweeted an answer from his Grok chatbot that said: 'Evidence shows Labour has suppressed aspects of free speech via the Online Safety Act's content monitoring.'
Ofcom 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 people safe.'
Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, said: 'The Online Safety Act is a necessary step toward protecting our children in the digital world. Years of work have gone into crafting a law that addresses the real dangers kids face in online spaces, including exploitation, suicide promotion and self-harm. Those who propose to scrap this vital law must explain why they think these heinous online activities are tolerable.'
A government spokesman said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater.
'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content.
'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Middle-income workers shoulder biggest tax burden increase
Middle-class workers are shouldering the biggest increase in the tax burden thanks to a stealth raid on thresholds, analysis suggests. The share of income tax paid by those who earn between £43,000 and £61,900 rose from 15.1pc to 17pc between 2021-22 and 2025-26, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. During the same five-year period, the share of income tax paid by the top 1pc, those earning more than £201,000 a year, fell from 30.7pc to 26.6pc, the pressure group found. It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a £50bn black hole in the public finances and declining tax revenue as high-net-worth individuals look to move abroad. Analysis by the Financial Times this month revealed there had been a 40pc rise in directors moving abroad since Labour's autumn Budget. The Taxpayers' Alliance report found the proportion of total income tax receipts increased for every group except for the top 1pc of earners, thanks to a series of stealth taxes first introduced by the Conservatives. Income tax thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free 'personal allowance', were frozen at the 2021 budget by then chancellor Rishi Sunak until 2025-26. A year later, his successor, Jeremy Hunt, extended the freeze until 2027-28. Despite promising not to raise taxes on working people, Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled out extending the freeze further to 2029-30. Keeping thresholds frozen means earners lose a larger share of their incomes to tax, as inflation pushes up wages in a process known as fiscal drag. The stealth raid means almost 2.9 million more people will pay the basic rate of income tax in 2025-26 than in 2021-22, while over 2.6 million more will pay the higher rate. Including other rates, almost 6 million more people are forecast to be paying income tax than in 2021-22. John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'This is the sad but inevitable result of successive governments' assortment of anti-affluence tax policies, which penalise aspiration and success. 'The UK is now trapped in a doom loop with the Chancellor desperately scrabbling around for more cash to fill the fiscal black hole and increasingly finding her only option is to come after the middle classes. 'Rachel Reeves needs to now show some humility and reverse the policies that have done so much to drive away high earners.' The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research on Tuesday warned slowing economic growth, a weak jobs market and Labour's failure to commit to welfare reform meant Ms Reeves was on course to miss her borrowing targets by £41.2bn. When combined with the £9.9bn of headroom the Chancellor has committed to keeping, it means she is facing a £51.1bn deficit in the autumn that will either have to be solved by raising taxes or cutting spending. The study also underlined the importance for the Treasury's balance sheet to keep the highest earners in Britain. Despite the proportion of tax paid by the top 1pc of earners falling, the group still accounts for more than a quarter of all income tax receipts. Analysis of Companies House by the Financial Times found that 3,790 company directors had left Britain between October and July compared with 2,712 in the same period a year earlier. Significant names have included Richard Gnodde, Goldman Sachs ' most senior banker outside the US, Nassef Sawiris, the Aston Villa co-owner, and British property tycoon brothers Ian and Richard Livingstone. It comes after Labour launched a wide-ranging tax raid after coming to power last year. This included abolishing the non-dom status and tightening inheritance tax rules. Laura Suter, of AJ Bell, said: 'Government tax policy in the past few years has had the dual outcome of pushing some of the wealthiest to leave the UK and also landing more taxpayers with higher tax bills at the same time. 'Together, this means that an increasing proportion of the total tax bill of the country is paid by middle earners, rather than the super-rich. 'Looking ahead, any potential tax-raising measures that Rachel Reeves makes in her next Budget could exacerbate this dynamic further.' Trevor Williams, a former chief economist at Lloyds Bank, previously warned Britain was facing a millionaires' exodus. Mr Williams said: 'Since 2014, the number of resident millionaires in the UK dropped by 9pc compared with the world's 10 wealthiest countries' global average growth of more than 40pc. 'Over the same period, the US saw a 78pc increase in millionaires – the fastest wealth growth [among these countries].' The Treasury insisted that under its Plan for Change it would keep more money in people's pockets. A spokesman said: 'This government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds. At the Budget and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze. 'We are also protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT. That's the Plan for Change – protecting people's incomes and putting money into people's pockets.'
The Guardian
2 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Calls for clarity over whether UK police can release suspects' ethnicity and immigration status
Yvette Cooper is facing demands for clarity over the information that police forces are permitted to release to the public after claims of a 'cover-up' by the authorities over the immigration status of men accused of raping a child. The Warwickshire police and crime commissioner, Philip Seccombe, called for fresh national guidance after police were accused by Reform UK of failing to confirm that two Afghan men being prosecuted for the alleged attack on a 12-year-old girl were asylum seekers. There is increasing pressure on prosecutors and the police to release details about the ethnicity and immigration status of people facing a criminal charge. Cooper, the home secretary, said on Tuesday that the guidance should change to permit police to release the ethnicity or immigration status of criminal suspects but added that she was waiting for a review to be concluded by the Law Commission. Seccombe said: 'Like all forces, Warwickshire police finds itself in a difficult position of trying to carefully balance the legal safeguards which protect the integrity of the judicial process, while maintaining public order and simultaneously ensuring that public confidence is maintained through transparency and honesty. 'Currently police forces are in an invidious position when deciding what can and should be disclosed in sensitive cases, given that the national guidance is silent on both the ethnicity and immigration status of suspects. 'It is very easy to criticise and suggest that the balance of disclosure hasn't been correct, but it is much harder to take these decisions on the ground.' The alleged rape, said to have happened on 22 July, has become the centre of a political storm after the Reform leader, Nigel Farage, on Monday amplified claims of a police cover-up. On Tuesday the leader of Reform-led Warwickshire county council said police were refusing to confirm details of the two suspects charged after the alleged attack in Nuneaton. George Finch, the youngest council leader in England, alleged within days that Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir – the two men charged in the case – were asylum seekers, but police forces do not routinely release the immigration status of suspects. In a letter to Cooper, Finch claimed the police risked 'disorder breaking out on the streets' of the county. Cooper said on Tuesday that 'we do want to see greater transparency' from police forces and she wanted national guidance to change in relation to the release of information about suspects. Mulakhil has been charged with two counts of rape, while Kabir has been charged with kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting of the rape of a girl aged under 13. Both men are in custody and due to appear at Warwick crown court on 26 August. Warwickshire county council's chief executive briefed Finch confidentially about the immigration status of the two men, according to a letter by the force's chief constable, Alex Franklin-Smith. Franklin-Smith said he confirmed to Finch last Thursday that this information was accurate but that 'we wouldn't be releasing immigration status at point of charge as we follow national guidance'. The police chief said he had asked the Home Office to confirm the full immigration status of the two men, given that Finch had released some details publicly. He added: 'I am confident that Warwickshire police has treated this investigation seriously from the outset, working tirelessly to identify, locate, arrest and charge those suspected of being responsible for this awful crime as quickly as possible.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'As the home secretary said yesterday, it has been widely reported that this case involves two Afghan individuals who are in the asylum system, some of which information has already been confirmed in open court. 'The home secretary has made clear that there is a strong public interest in maximum transparency wherever that is possible. 'That is why the Home Office and College of Policing are working together to strengthen and clarify the guidance around how and when information is released.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Armed police arrest gardener over his arsenal of allotment tools
Armed police arrested a gardener for 'carrying a knife' as he walked home with his allotment tools. Samuel Rowe, 35, was detained, kept in a cell and cautioned after being accused of carrying a ' large dagger ' last month. He had just tended to his allotment vegetable patch and was trimming the hedges outside his home with a sickle when armed police swooped on July 3. His Japanese gardening trowel, a sickle and a fruit harvesting tool were confiscated before he was taken to a police station. He was then held in a cell for more than seven hours before he was released when he accepted a caution for possession of an offensive weapon. The theatre manager said he was left terrified when officers armed with guns turned up outside his home and now wants the caution overturned. 'Some kind of extremist' Mr Rowe, of Manchester, said: 'I was coming back from my allotment in the morning. 'I'd just got home and started trimming the hedge at the top of my house, and then I heard shouting and it was armed police – two armed police telling me to 'drop the knife.' 'At the time I had my Japanese gardening sickle in my hand that I was using, so I dropped that along with the privet I'd been cutting. 'Then they turned me around, pushed me up against the house, handcuffed me behind my back, took everything out my belt. 'Then they asked me why I was there and where I'd been. 'Eventually they put me in the back of their van and took me to Cheadle Hulme police station, which is miles from my house. 'They got into their head I was some kind of extremist going out with knives.' Conflicting accounts He said he was then kept in cells and asked if he wanted a solicitor, but he never got to see one. At interview, he says police asked him bizarre questions such as what an allotment was. He has been growing fruit and veg – including rhubarb, broad beans, artichokes, and tomatoes, at his allotment since 2022. Now, he is worried that the police caution he accepted will appear on background checks if he applies for future job interviews. Greater Manchester Police said firearms officers were sent as they were the closest to the scene after they were alerted by a member of the public. The force denies Samuel was ever refused legal advice, saying it tried multiple times to contact a solicitor and he chose to decline legal advice in the end. A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said: 'At around 12.20pm on 3 July, we acted on a call from a member of the public that a man was walking in public wearing khaki clothing and in possession of a knife. 'Nearby officers were flagged down by the caller, who directed them towards a male. 'He was subsequently stopped and a small sickle, a large dagger which was in a sheath on a belt, and a peeling knife, were seized. 'He was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and taken into custody. 'He admitted the offence and was given a conditional caution, which entailed advice and guidance around the legislation of knives and bladed weapons in a public place.'
