Dear Brian,

Somewhere in Whitehall, Labour’s speech police are hard at work deciding what you’re allowed to see.

Apparently, nothing offends them more than being held to account.

Posts questioning the government’s handling of the grooming gangs scandal, illegal channel crossings and women’s rights have all been scrubbed from social media feeds.

These lawful posts were hidden under the Online Safety Act, which gives the government the power to demand platforms “age-gate” any content it deems “harmful.”

But since X refuses to force its users into invasive ID checks, it has no reliable way to separate adults from teenagers. So, when the government makes demands, the platform has only two choices: censor the content for everyone, or risk fines of up to 10% of its global turnover.

Faced with that ultimatum, the government’s sweeping new censorship powers win.

This should concern anyone who believes in free speech, open debate, and democratic accountability.

When a sitting government can quietly pressure platforms into suppressing criticism without transparency, legal process or consequence, democracy itself is under threat.

This marks a dangerous turning point, and you and I have a responsibility to act before further censorship becomes the norm.

That’s why we’ve launched a national petition demanding that party leaders either repeal the Online Safety Act in full or take immediate steps to roll back its most authoritarian and censorious powers.

While I’ve rightly called out Labour for abusing the Online Safety Act’s authoritarian and censorious powers to silence free speech and suppress criticism, we must remember that this law was created by the Conservatives and rubber-stamped by MPs across the political spectrum.

However, with Reform UK now committing to repeal the Act in full, have a real opportunity to encourage other parties to follow suit and reclaim our freedoms.

Please join us in making sure no government is ever allowed to censor critical opinion of itself to protect its own power.

Dear Brian,

The UK is now censoring lawful speech on the internet!

Over the weekend:

• A parliamentary speech made by Conservative MP Katie Lam, highlighting the horrors of grooming gang abuse and condemning the Government’s delay in launching local inquiries scandal, was taken out of the public conversation.
• Social media posts expressing support for single-sex spaces as essential to the safety of biological women were removed from the feeds of UK users of X.
• Videos of a public demonstration raising concerns over the government’s handling of illegal channel crossings were made inaccessible.

This wave of censorship followed the activation of new powers under the Online Safety Act 2023, which took effect on Friday, 25 July and changed the rules of the internet overnight.

When concerned citizens, civil liberties groups, legal experts and others warned that the Act would be used to censor lawful speech and suppress dissent, we were gaslighted.

But rather than address valid concerns about what these sweeping powers would mean for free speech, ministers in successive Conservative governments insisted it was all about keeping children safe. They brushed aside warnings, framing every objection as a threat to child welfare and smearing defenders of free expression as if they were complicit in harm.

Now, just days into the Online Safety Act’s censorious powers coming into force, it’s clear our warnings were justified: legal speech is being suppressed for people of all ages.

The censorship we’re now witnessing is the direct result of specific powers buried in the Online Safety Act.

Section 11 compels platforms to restrict access to content deemed “harmful to children”, even when it is entirely lawful, unless users verify their age through invasive checks. This has already led to content critical of Labour being blocked from younger users. With the party seeking to give 16-17-year-olds the vote, this looks less like a measure to protect children and more like political grooming.

Section 44 gives a single minister the authority to impose censorship rules without a vote in Parliament. This allows the government to instruct Ofcom on what speech is permissible, and platforms face ruinous fines if they refuse to comply.

And, Section 179 makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison to say something “false” that causes “non-trivial psychological harm”. Though no official data has been released yet, credible sources indicate that hundreds of individuals have already been targeted under this offence, with some of those having been imprisoned.

We are deeply concerned that the Online Safety Act has handed the Government powers that belong in a dictatorship, not a democracy.

That’s why we’ve launched a national petition demanding that party leaders take immediate steps either to fully repeal the Online Safety Act or to commit to:

1. Amending Section 11 of the Online Safety Act so that age-verification requirements apply exclusively to pornographic content, not to lawful political speech or other content arbitrarily deemed “harmful” to children.
2. Repealing Section 44 of the Online Safety Act, which allows a single minister to impose censorship rules without parliamentary oversight.
3. Repealing Section 179 of the Online Safety Act, which criminalises “false” communications that cause “non-trivial psychological harm” – a term so broad and subjective it could include almost anything.

Once supported across the political spectrum, the Online Safety Act is now under new scrutiny as its dangers continue to emerge.

With Reform UK leader Nigel Farage now promising to repeal the Online Safety Act in full if elected, we have an opportunity to shine a national spotlight on the law’s most Orwellian provisions and demand that others commit to scrapping them.

Ministers should not have the power to dictate speech without parliamentary approval. People should not face prosecution for causing emotional offence.

Lawful expression should never be filtered, hidden or age-gated by default.

Such powers are incompatible with a free society, and they must be repealed.

What happens next will shape the future of free expression in the UK for a generation.

If we succeed in forcing a repeal of the Act’s most censorious powers, we will stop the slide toward further censorship, regulatory overreach, and state-punished expression.

But if we fail, the consequences will be lasting.

The censorship powers handed to government ministers and unelected regulators will become embedded.

Platforms will continue to over-censor out of fear.

Citizens will continue to self-censor out of confusion.

And future governments will inherit a fully legalised framework for silencing dissent, with barely any public scrutiny or resistance.