There is no shortage of laws on the books to protect children. What Britain does not need is a censorship regime dressed up as one.
The Online Safety Act was trumpeted as the answer to every parent’s fears about the internet. Ministers promised it would tackle bullying, grooming, self-harm forums, and the darkest forms of criminal content. For months, the government repeated the mantra: “This is about protecting children.”
But what the country got was something very different. Instead of a narrowly focused child-protection bill, the Act has become a sprawling piece of legislation that hands unprecedented powers to Ofcom, turning the regulator into a de facto speech police. Platforms now face ruinous fines if they fail to remove content deemed illegal, harmful, or simply unfashionable in Westminster.
The Immigration Clause
The most glaring example is immigration. Out of nowhere, a law meant to shield children also targets material that could be construed as “assisting unlawful immigration.” Suddenly, tech companies are responsible for policing posts that mention Channel crossings.
The government claims this is necessary to disrupt smuggling gangs, which have used social media to advertise “safe passage” across the Channel. Nobody disputes that criminals should not be allowed to sell their services on TikTok or Facebook. But the way the law is written goes far beyond adverts. A video clip of migrants arriving on the south coast, a news article about crossings, or even a charity appeal for asylum seekers could all fall into a grey zone.
That is how censorship works in the modern age: not by banning debate outright, but by drafting vague laws that force companies to remove anything remotely risky. To avoid fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover, platforms will over-comply. Ordinary speech will be collateral damage.
Narrative Control
Make no mistake: this is not about children. It is about narrative control.
If you can label political content “harmful,” you can silence dissent without ever admitting it. The Online Safety Act gives ministers a convenient tool: they can claim to be protecting young people while ensuring that sensitive issues—immigration, borders, even criticism of official policy—are scrubbed from online debate.
This is not paranoia. Science Secretary Peter Kyle has already admitted that immigration-related content has been restricted under the Act. X (formerly Twitter) has raised alarms about proposals for a “national investigations team” to monitor anti-migrant speech. Reform UK has gone further, branding the legislation “borderline dystopian.”
Once the state has the power to decide which opinions are permissible, the principle of free speech is gone.
The Good Intentions Trap
Defenders of the Act claim that critics are exaggerating. They point to the good intentions behind the law: protecting children from predators, shielding teenagers from self-harm content, cleaning up the worst corners of the internet.
But the road to censorship hell is always paved with good intentions. Few governments ever admit they want to control speech. They cloak their ambitions in moral causes: protecting children, combating hate, saving lives. Once the power exists, it is always expanded.
We have been here before. Anti-terror laws were used to monitor journalists and protesters. COVID regulations were stretched far beyond public health. Now the Online Safety Act risks being transformed from a shield for children into a weapon against free debate.
Who Watches the Watchers?
The real question is: who watches Ofcom? An unelected regulator now has the power to decide which posts survive and which are buried. This is not a minor agency decision—it is a direct intrusion into the democratic conversation.
If the Home Secretary dislikes a narrative about immigration, pressure can be applied. If ministers decide certain critiques of government policy are “harmful,” Ofcom is in position to enforce it. And because fines are so extreme, platforms will have no choice but to comply.
That is not child protection. That is soft authoritarianism.
Britain Deserves Better
Britain should be a country where children are protected and adults are free to speak their minds. Those two goals are not contradictory—they can be achieved with targeted, proportionate laws. We already have criminal statutes against child abuse imagery, grooming, incitement, and fraud. What we do not need is a catch-all censorship regime that expands into every politically convenient area.
The Online Safety Act has the balance backwards. Instead of focusing narrowly on shielding children, it has sprawled into border enforcement, political moderation, and narrative control. It risks creating a Britain where difficult debates are silenced under the banner of “safety.”
Free societies are not defined by how they treat easy speech but by how they tolerate the difficult kind. That is the test Britain is now failing.
What do you think — is this really about protecting children, or is it something else? Share your thoughts below.
