Elon Musk’s X platform has said the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) is at risk of “seriously infringing” free speech as a row deepens over measures for protecting children from harmful content.
The social media company said the act’s “laudable” intentions were being overshadowed by its aggressive implementation by the communications watchdog, Ofcom.
In a statement posted on the platform, X said: “Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public’s right to free expression.”
The UK government hit back, saying it was “demonstrably false” to claim the act compromised free speech, and pointing to its provisions on protecting freedom of expression.
X added in its statement that the freedom of speech risk would not be a surprise to the UK government because by passing the OSA, lawmakers had made a “conscientious decision” to increase censorship in the name of “online safety”.
“It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made,” said X.
The act, a bugbear of the political right on both sides of the Atlantic, has come under renewed scrutiny after new restrictions on under-18s accessing pornography and viewing content harmful to children came into force on 25 July.
Musk, X’s owner, said days after the rules came into force that the act’s purpose was “suppression of the people”. He also retweeted a petition calling for repeal of the act that has garnered more than 450,000 signatures.
X has been forced to age-restrict some content as a consequence, with the Reform UK party adding to the furore by pledging to repeal the act. Reform’s commitment prompted the UK technology secretary, Peter Kyle, to accuse Nigel Farage of siding with the paedophile Jimmy Savile, a comment Farage described as “below the belt” and deserving of an apology.
Referring to Ofcom, X said regulators had taken a “heavy-handed approach” to enforcing the act by “rapidly increasing enforcement resources” and “adding layers of bureaucratic oversight”.
The statement said: “The act’s laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.”
X said it was compliant with the act but the threat of enforcement and fines – which in the case of social media platforms such as X could be as high as 10% of global turnover – could encourage censorship of legitimate content in order to avoid punishment.
The statement also mentioned plans to create a national internet intelligence investigations team to monitor social media for signs of anti-migrant disorder. X said the proposal may be positioned as a safety measures but “it clearly goes far beyond that intent”.
skip past newsletter promotion
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
It said: “This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterise it as excessive and potentially restrictive. A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children.”
A spokesperson for Ofcom said the OSA contained clauses protecting freedom of speech.
They said: “The new rules require tech firms to tackle criminal content and prevent children from seeing defined types of material that’s harmful to them. There is no requirement on them to restrict legal content for adult users.”
A UK government spokespersonsaid companies faced fines under the act for failing to protect freedom of expression as well as for allowing children to view harmful content.
They said: “It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties.”
