𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The UK’s Online Safety Act—hailed by politicians as a landmark step to protect children online—risks silencing an entire generation of young people, stifling free speech and access to vital information, civil liberties advocates have warned. James Baker, Platform Programme Manager at the Open Rights Group, was speaking in the wake of fierce criticism of the legislation from, among others, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Mr Baker described the Online Safety Act as “a fundamental encroachment on the right to freedom of expression to impart and receive information.” He told Express.co.uk: “We have to find ways to protect young people from online harm. But we also have to respect the freedom of expression rights of young people, especially older teenagers who we are now saying will be able to vote at 16 but might find themselves blocked from learning about current affairs on social media.”

The Act imposes sweeping duties on social media platforms, search engines, and other online services to police content that is illegal or deemed harmful. Critics say the law’s broad and vague definitions risk encouraging platforms to over-censor content to avoid crippling fines.

Mr Baker warned: “The Online Safety Act risks silencing a generation. Older teenagers engaging with political debates or current events may be cut off from vital sources of information because platforms will err on the side of removal to avoid hefty penalties.”

The legislation was introduced by the Conservative Government and backed by MPs across parties, but its flaws have sparked political and public controversy. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have voiced increasing scepticism, while Reform UK calls for outright repeal.

Mr Baker said: “Labour’s criticism of Mr Farage’s position misses the nuance. We have published a report, How to Fix the Online Safety Act: A Rights First Approach, setting out practical changes to protect freedom of expression. One key recommendation is that the law should protect democratic and news content by category rather than by who publishes it.”

He explained: “Current protections for news publishers should be extended to all users who assert they are publishing news or democratically important content. That would stop platforms from censoring political discussions just because the speaker isn’t a registered media organisation.”

The report also urges exemptions for low-risk, public-interest sites to shield small forums and niche platforms struggling with the cost and complexity of compliance.

Mr Baker said: “Small community sites face closure or block UK users entirely. This risks pushing ordinary people out of online conversations and stifling grassroots democracy.”

Mr Baker noted: “There’s a rebellion growing among Liberal Democrat youth and if public anger grows, Labour might have to rethink its approach.”

The Act’s tough restrictions on content relating to suicide and self-harm are another flashpoint. Mr Farage has argued these rules should be removed, warning they risk silencing vulnerable people.

Mr Baker said: “Government and regulators could exempt low-risk and public interest sites and services. We should incentivise accuracy of takedowns and create fast appeals for wrongly censored content.”

He added: “We need systems that respect human rights and support democratic engagement online. Without that, the law risks undermining the freedoms it claims to protect.”

The Online Safety Act, which came into force on July 25, 2025, requires adult content sites to enforce strict age verification and mandates broad content moderation on major tech platforms.

But the backlash has been fierce. Over 420,000 people have signed petitions demanding repeal, and VPN use has surged as users seek to bypass restrictions.

Privacy experts warn that age verification risks exposing sensitive data and enabling state surveillance. Encryption advocates fear the Act could weaken end-to-end encryption, leaving private communications vulnerable.

Meanwhile, many smaller sites have shut down or blocked UK users to avoid the cost and risk of fines reaching £18 million or 10% of global turnover.

Mr Baker said: “As these consequences unfold, urgent reforms are needed to avoid silencing young voices and curtailing free expression while failing to make the internet safer.”

Mr Farage has pledged to repeal the Online Safety Act, labelling it a “dystopian” infringement on free speech.

Mr Farage said at a press conference: “This legislation is a massive overreach. It risks turning the UK into a borderline dystopian state by imposing stringent content moderation requirements on platforms.”

He admitted: “We do not have a perfect answer for what could replace the Online Safety Act, but Reform UK will make a much better job of it by leveraging expertise from some of the best tech minds in the country.”

Mr Farage argued: “The Act’s provisions, such as age verification and content moderation, are ineffective in preventing harm and could push vulnerable individuals towards more dangerous corners of the internet.”

He criticised the Act’s impact on free speech, saying it “could lead to censorship of legitimate content and discussions.”

Responding to Technology Secretary Peter Kyle’s accusation that he sides with “extreme pornographers” and “Jimmy Savile,” Mr Farage demanded an apology, calling the remarks “disgusting” and “below the belt.”

Mr Farage’s stance has sparked a wider debate about the balance between online safety and freedom of expression. Supporters argue for a more nuanced approach to regulation that protects users without infringing on civil liberties.