In an editorial piece on Sunday, The Free Press said its content is being censored in the U.K., because it “violates” parts of the country’s Online Safety Act.
The law was passed in 2023 with the intention of shielding British children and teens from harmful content like pornography. But last week, readers across the pond said they were prompted to provide age verification to read journalist Nellie Bowles’ “TGIF” column in The Free Press.
Why did the U.K.’s speech censors flag The Free Press? Editors believe the U.K.’s Office of Communications, or Ofcom, took fault with the organization’s recent take on alleged fraud by members of the Somali community in Minneapolis and a piece about attacks on Christianity.
The Minneapolis piece allegedly violated the Online Safety Act’s rules on “language around groups of people.”
The Online Safety Act can be used ‘to shut down inconvenient discussions,’ according to The Free Press
Online age verification in the U.K. is much more robust than efforts in the U.S. To check an online user’s age, Ofcom reviews photo submissions, bank information, credit card information and more.
And though the Online Safety Act only affects British internet users, verification requirements apply to everyone — not just companies based in the U.K.
The Free Press is run on Substack, a blogging platform based in San Francisco. While Substack is “a strong backer of free speech and opposed to the U.K. law,” it must comply or “face ruinous fines,” the Free Press editors wrote.
Penalties can be up to 10% of the company’s qualifying worldwide revenue or 18 million pounds ($24 million), whichever is greater, per Pinsent Masons, an international law firm based in London.
“No one wants to stand up to support online bullying or the dissemination of pornography and material promoting self-harm to children,” the Free Press editors wrote Sunday. “But when slogans turn into laws, the legislation inevitably comes to cover a laundry list of things that kids can be protected from.”
With this recent censorship of The Free Press, the Online Safety Act seems to be “limiting the ability of adults to read about and discuss important political questions,” they wrote.
If the Online Safety Act is harmful to free speech, how can we still protect kids?
“It may be possible to devise online safety protocols without massive overreach,” the Free Press editorial said.
It referenced “genuinely well-intentioned efforts” in Texas to block children’s access to pornography without hindering access to the rest of the internet.
“The U.K. could have created a law that stuck to the basic principles of, say, blocking pornography or providing instructions for suicide ... in actuality, the U.K. created a law that can be used by activists or regulators to shut down inconvenient discussions ... that have little to do with the U.K,” they wrote.
Utah has also been working on legislation to improve tech safety for kids and teenagers.
Instead of focusing on censorship, the state passed a law in April that requires app developers to annually verify a user’s age and confirm parental consent has been given. The law also allows parents of harmed minors to sue developers or the app store if they violate these provisions.