UK News

The US State Department regularly asses human right in countries around the world. The latest report about the UK is particularly scathing. The US State Department Summary reads:

The human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom during the year.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.

The government sometimes took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, but prosecution and punishment for such abuses was inconsistent.

The US report is critical of the UK's censorship law, particularly The Online Safety Act:

There were laws in the United Kingdom (UK) that restricted freedom of speech in certain areas or allowed local councils to establish areas with restrictions on freedom of speech.

The law authorized UK authorities, including the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to monitor all forms of communication for speech they deemed illegal.

The Online Safety Act of 2023, which came into force in 2024, defined the category of online harm and expressly expanded Ofcom's authority to include American media and technology firms with a substantial number of British users, regardless of whether they had a corporate presence in the UK. Under the law, companies were required to engage in proactive illegal content risk assessment to mitigate the risk of users encountering speech deemed illegal by Ofcom. Experts warned that one effect of the bill could be government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms.

On April 1, the Scottish government implemented the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, including the introduction of offenses stirring up hatred through threatening or abusive behavior and the communication of threatening or abusive material.

Oner 450 people have been arrested in central London at the largest demonstration relating to Palestine Action since the group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

On Saturday night, the Metropolitan police said:

Parliament Square and Whitehall are clear. As of 9pm, 466 people had been arrested for showing support for Palestine Action.

By Saturday afternoon, hundreds of people had gathered in Parliament Square for a demonstration organised by the campaign group Defend Our Juries, who said approximately 1,000 sign-holders had turned up.

The Met said it estimated 500-600 people were in Parliament Square when the demonstration began, but many were not partaking.

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said earlier:

The fact that unprecedented numbers came out today risking arrest and possible imprisonment shows how repulsed and ashamed people are about our governments ongoing complicity in a livestreamed genocide, and the lengths people are prepared to go to defend this countrys ancient liberties.

Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible. But in one of the latest misguided attempts to protect children online, internet users of all ages in the UK are being forced to prove their age before they can access millions of websites under the countrys Online Safety Act (OSA).

The legislation attempts to make the UK the 'the safest place' in the world to be online by placing a duty of care on online platforms to protect their users from harmful content. It mandates that any site accessible in the UK--including social media , search engines , music sites , and adult content providers --enforce age checks to prevent children from seeing harmful content . This is defined in three categories, and failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue or courts blocking services:

• Primary priority content that is harmful to children:

  • Pornographic content.

  • Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for:

    • suicide;

    • self-harm; or

    • an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder.

• Priority content that is harmful to children:

  • Content that is abusive on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment;

  • Content that incites hatred against people on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or gender reassignment;

  • Content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for serious violence against a person;

  • Bullying content;

  • Content which depicts serious violence against or graphicly depicts serious injury to a person or animal (whether real or fictional);

  • Content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for stunts and challenges that are highly likely to result in serious injury; and

  • Content that encourages the self-administration of harmful substances.

• Non-designated content that is harmful to children (NDC):

  • Content is NDC if it presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK, provided that the risk of harm does not flow from any of the following:

    • the contents potential financial impact;

    • the safety or quality of goods featured in the content; or

    • the way in which a service featured in the content may be performed.

Online service providers must make a judgement about whether the content they host is harmful to children, and if so, address the risk by implementing a number of measures, which includes, but is not limited to:

• Robust age checks: Services must use 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from this content. If services have minimum age requirements and are not using highly effective age assurance to prevent children under that age using the service, they should assume that younger children are on their service and take appropriate steps to protect them from harm.'

  To do this, all users on sites that host this content must verify their age, for example by uploading a form of ID like a passport, taking a face selfie or video to facilitate age assurance through third-party services, or giving permission for the age-check service to access information from your bank about whether you are over 18.

• Safer algorithms: Services 'will be expected to configure their algorithms to ensure children are not presented with the most harmful content and take appropriate action to protect them from other harmful content.'

• Effective moderation: All services 'must have content moderation systems in place to take swift action against content harmful to children when they become aware of it.'

Since these measures took effect in late July, social media platforms Reddit , Bluesky , Discord , and X all introduced age checks to block children from seeing harmful content on their sites. Porn websites like Pornhub and YouPorn implemented age assurance checks on their sites, now asking users to either upload government-issued ID, provide an email address for technology to analyze other online services where it has been used, or submit their information to a third-party vendor for age verification. Sites like Spotify are also requiring users to submit face scans to third-party digital identity company Yoti to access content labelled 18+. Ofcom, which oversees implementation of the OSA, went further by sending letters to try to enforce the UK legislation on U.S.-based companies such as the right-wing platform Gab .

The UK Must Do Better

The UK is not alone in pursuing such a misguided approach to protect children online: the U.S. Supreme Court recently paved the way for states to require websites to check the ages of users before allowing them access to graphic sexual materials; courts in France last week ruled that porn websites can check users ages; the European Commission is pushing forward with plans to test its age-verification app; and Australias ban on youth under the age of 16 accessing social media is likely to be implemented in December.

But the UKs scramble to find an effective age verification method shows us that there isn't one, and its high time for politicians to take that seriously. The Online Safety Act is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.

And, to top it all off, UK internet users are sending a very clear message that they do not want anything to do with this censorship regime. Just days after age checks came into effect, VPN apps became the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK, and a petition calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act recently hit more than 400,000 signatures.

The internet must remain a place where all voices can be heard, free from discrimination or censorship by government agencies. If the UK really wants to achieve its goal of being the safest place in the world to go online, it must lead the way in introducing policies that actually protect all users--including children--rather than pushing the enforcement of legislation that harms the very people it was meant to protect.

The terrorism arrest of a man for holding up a Private Eye cartoon during a protest at the weekend was mind-boggling, the magazines editor, Ian Hislop , has said, as the retired teacher called for an apology from police.

The man was picked up by police at a silent demonstration in Leeds on Saturday, which he described as a pretty terrifying and upsetting experience, for holding a sign that made a joke about the governments proscription of the group Palestine Action from the last issue of the fortnightly satirical magazine.

He was arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which prohibits support for a proscribed organisation.

Six hours later, after being questioned by counter-terrorism police, he was allowed to leave, under bail conditions that he attended no Palestine Action rallies, which, as he pointed out, he had never done and would be illegal under terrorism laws anyway. On Monday morning, a counter-terrorism officer called to tell him he would face no further action.

I found out later somebody said to one of the police: You know you can buy Private Eye in the newsagent just next to the van youre putting him in, are you going to arrest Ian Hislop ?