Why Britain Arrests 30 People EVERY DAY For Speech

The Online Safety Act: Origins and Impact

Lord Young traces the origins of the Online Safety Act back to a moral panic centered on children's exposure to harmful online content, including self-harm, suicide, and pornography. Initially introduced under Theresa May's government by Sajid Javid, the legislation was pitched as a way to make the UK the "safest place in the world to go online." While this sounds benign, Young questions what "safety" truly means in this context, suggesting it risks equating safety with heavy censorship, akin to authoritarian regimes.

The act evolved under Boris Johnson's government to focus more explicitly on protecting children from harmful content, including pornography and websites promoting anorexia. However, the legislation's scope extended beyond children, originally including provisions to protect adults from "legal but harmful" content. This phrase, though never explicitly appearing in the bill, was a dangerous concept that the Free Speech Union and other advocates successfully pushed to remove. The concern was that it created a gray area where legal speech could still be censored, undermining a fundamental principle of English common law: that unless something is explicitly prohibited, it is permitted.

Despite this partial victory, the act still imposes onerous obligations on online platforms, including hefty fines—up to 10% of global turnover or £18 million—and even the possibility of jail time for executives who fail to comply. This has led to widespread over-removal of content, as companies err on the side of caution to avoid penalties. Examples include age-gating innocuous content such as historical speeches, political commentary, and footage of protests, raising questions about democratic access, especially as the voting age may soon be lowered to 16.

The Failure of Free Speech Safeguards

The Online Safety Act includes supposed "free speech guardrails," requiring platforms to consider free speech when moderating content. However, Young explains that these duties are legally weak and easily overridden by other obligations. Additional safeguards for "category 1" providers—major platforms designated by the government—are stalled due to legal challenges, notably from Wikipedia, which fears that compliance would force disclosure of anonymous editors' identities, threatening privacy and potentially leading to geoblocking in the UK.

This delay means that the most significant protections for democratic and journalistic content have yet to take effect, contributing to the ongoing over-censorship. The act's complexity and opacity further exacerbate the problem, leaving platform executives overwhelmed and incentivized to remove content preemptively.

The Slippery Slope of Anonymity and Age Verification

A critical concern raised by Young is the erosion of online anonymity through mandatory age verification. While protecting children from harmful content is a noble goal, requiring users to prove they are over 18 risks exposing vulnerable individuals—such as political dissidents, refugees, and apostates—to danger. The security of age verification services is questionable, and data breaches, even by highly secure institutions like the Ministry of Defence, highlight the risks involved.

Young also challenges the simplistic narrative linking online content directly to self-harm or violent behavior, arguing that such explanations are psychologically naive and serve as a convenient scapegoat for deeper societal issues. He emphasizes that the state's role should not replace parental responsibility, especially when many parents lack the technological literacy to monitor their children's online activity effectively.

Political Motivations and the Suppression of Dissent

The conversation turns to the political uses of the Online Safety Act, with Young expressing concern that the government is using it to suppress dissent and avoid confronting its own policy failures, particularly on immigration. He suggests that senior politicians like Keir Starmer and Peter Kyle believe the act does not go far enough and seek to expand censorship powers, especially against content critical of immigration policies.

Young highlights the government's apparent surprise at platforms' suppression of anti-immigration content, which aligns with their desire to control narratives around social unrest and protests. He argues that the authorities prefer to blame "bad actors" on social media rather than acknowledge the public's legitimate grievances about mass immigration and multiculturalism, which have eroded trust in institutions.

This avoidance leads to a "willed naivety" where the government refuses to engage in open debate, instead resorting to censorship and demonization of critics. Young points to the example of Peter Kyle's inflammatory claim that Nigel Farage's opposition to the Online Safety Act aligns him with predators like Jimmy Savile—a tactic Young dismisses as a desperate political blunder that undermines serious discourse.

The Broader Cultural Shift

Beyond the Online Safety Act, Young discusses a wider cultural transformation in Britain, where traditional values of tolerance have given way to demands for respect, often enforced through legal and social pressure. He contrasts the UK's historic religious tolerance with current efforts to impose blasphemy codes, particularly around Islam, and the rise of compelled speech regarding gender identity.

This shift threatens free speech by criminalizing humor, satire, and "banter," which have long been vital to British cultural life. Young warns that new laws extending employer liability for harassment by third parties could stifle everyday conversation, comedy, and public discourse, turning workplaces and public venues into overly sanitized environments.

The Scale of Speech-Related Arrests

Perhaps the most alarming revelation is the scale of police action against speech offenses. Young cites a Times report showing that over 12,000 people were arrested in a single year under just two speech-related laws, averaging more than 30 arrests per day. Many of these arrests result in no prosecution but are recorded as "non-crime hate incidents," which have totaled over a quarter of a million in England and Wales over the past decade.

This policing of speech diverts resources from addressing actual crimes like burglary or theft, reflecting a prioritization of controlling public discourse over public safety. Young's stark observation is that the police are more focused on monitoring tweets than protecting streets, a trend that undermines trust in law enforcement and democratic freedoms.

Encryption, Privacy, and the Future of Online Speech

The discussion also touches on the government's attempts to access encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal, justified by the need to prevent grooming and other crimes. Young notes that these efforts threaten privacy and could lead to geoblocking of popular apps in the UK, further restricting digital freedoms.

He emphasizes the opacity and vagueness of the Online Safety Act's language, with terms like "safety" and "psychological harm" stretched to cover a wide range of subjective experiences. This ambiguity creates a chilling effect on speech, where humor, satire, and legitimate debate risk being criminalized.

Defending Free Speech in a Hostile Environment

Finally, Young shares insights from the Free Speech Union's work defending individuals punished for lawful speech, particularly gender-critical women who face disproportionate censorship and cancellation. The organization has fought thousands of cases with a high success rate and is increasingly involved in criminal defense as prosecutions for speech offenses rise under the current government.

Since Labour's rise to power, the Free Speech Union has doubled its membership and now handles dozens of new cases weekly, reflecting a growing climate of fear and repression around free expression.