The Online Safety Act is the latest wedge issue in British politics. The act was passed through parliament in 2023, but only came into effect in recent days. Its objective is to protect children from exposure to harmful content on the internet.
One of the main provisions of the act is that age verification requirements and other restrictions are placed on sites that contain material such as pornography, depictions of violence and hate speech, as well as sites that enable the promotion and purchase of drugs and weapons.
The backlash against the act has widened to much more than online safety. Opponents claim it is an encroachment on free speech and, in its own way, represents a slide towards authoritarianism. It is an interesting test case of how far a sovereign government can regulate online content within its borders amid unrelenting pressure from global technology firms. It will be closely watched on this side of the Irish Sea, where regulators have recently introduced the latest phase of new online safety rules
In the UK, a bipartisan US House Judiciary Committee visited recently on a fact-finding mission about the act. Jim Jordan, the committee chair, echoed President Trump’s opposition to any policing of online content, which in turn is closely aligned to the view of most US technology companies.
RM Block
Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform Party, has mounted a campaign against the act on the basis that it is incompatible with the principle of free speech. Ironically, at a forum Farage organised for the US congressional delegation, he threatened to remove one of the members, who is a Democrat, for criticising President Trump.
Farage, similar to the tech companies, offer no convincing solution to the growing crisis of harmful online content, particularly for children. The Online Safety Act may be a blunt instrument , but it is trying to address an unprecedented array of challenges. The act can be refined and adapted over time, but there is no question about its legitimacy and why it is needed.
