In 2023, the UK introduced the Online Safety Act (OSA) with an admirable objective: to make Britain the safest place to be online in the world. The legislation sought to shield children from harmful and adult-oriented content—addressing the rampant presence of online pornography and websites that promote suicide. On the surface, the act appeared to be a sincere effort to protect minors from the darker and more dangerous parts of the web.

As time demonstrated, however, it was one of the most flagrant attempts by a Western liberal democracy to bring the entire online world under government control.

This poorly written legislation, introduced by the conservatives and enacted just last July, authorizes Ofcom, Britain’s broadcast regulator, to compel companies to comply with new rules designed to safeguard minors. Under the law, these platforms are required to conduct risk assessments, submit annual transparency reports, implement age-verification systems, and provide Ofcom with evidence of their content moderation measures to safeguard children from inappropriate material. The fines levied on firms that fail to comply are exorbitant. They risk penalties of up to 10 percent of annual global revenue and possible legal prosecution.

While these severe restrictions have mostly affected UK internet users, the internet’s global, interconnected nature means the legislation has reached American shores. The internet chat forum 4chan has taken legal action against Ofcom after being fined £20,000 (US$26,450) in October for refusing to provide information regarding “illegal” content hosted on its platform, an unprecedented move.

Ofcom openly states that its “powers are not limited to service providers based in the UK,” as the OSA encompasses any platform service “with links” to the UK. For months, it has been issuing threatening letters to U.S. websites with no connection to the UK, other than that a small number of British people use them. In addition to 4chan, Gab and Kiwi Farms have all been required to file compliance documents, though they are still refusing to comply.

Lest there be any confusion, edgy websites are not the only targets of this legislation. In August, Wikipedia lost a legal fight over new OSA verification requirements that may require it to verify the identities of its anonymous contributors, jeopardizing their privacy and safety. This prompted Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales to announce in October that the online encyclopedia would reject any future Ofcom demands to restrict access to the site.

Wikipedia is correct to tell them to pound sand. Unelected foreign bureaucrats have no legal authority inside the United States to determine what platforms can publish. They are protected by the First Amendment. Americans rightly resent being told what they may and may not say in their own country, especially when it comes from Britain, of all places. Ofcom functions as a de facto arm of the British government, so any restriction they wish to impose on Americans’ free expression is about as meaningful as Keir Starmer’s opinions about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

It would be wise for Americans to approach this legislation and anything modeling itself after it with hostility rather than mere suspicion, however. Contrary to Starmer’s suggestions to the contrary, Britain does not have a proud tradition of free speech, particularly in the realm of online speech regulation. The potent combination of the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and the Communications Act of 2003 has resulted in an average of 30 arrests per day in the UK for online speech deemed “grossly offensive.” The OSA is a censor’s charter—and when the state attempts to legislate on matters said to give offense, the consequences often extend beyond and even work against what was originally intended (i.e., the protection of children).

The OSA is a cynical attempt by lawmakers to appease social conservatives, who have always opposed pornography for moral and religious reasons. Arguments that appeal to emotion, such as the phrase “think of the children,” often serve as Trojan horses. It has been used by generations of the meddling and well-connected to stifle free speech. Tipper Gore’s war against hip hop and Mary Whitehouse’s campaign against horror movies come to mind. Sadly, Boomers are once again being forced to acquiesce to censorship.

It’s already affecting journalism. Due to the subjective interpretation of these restrictions, legitimate political discussion has been suppressed. When British Conservative MP Katie Lam spoke in Parliament about the sexual crimes of grooming gangs, the ensuing video on X was age-gated. The recent video allegedly showing IDF soldiers sexually assaulting Palestinian prisoners may be suppressed, thereby limiting the ability to expose war crimes.

Unfortunately, when it comes to online regulation, Britain appears to have set a precedent. Nineteen U.S states have passed verification laws said to be designed to protect children from harmful content. At the federal level, the Kids Online Safety Act, introduced in Congress in 2022 with bipartisan support, seeks to impose a duty of care on tech companies to block material that may harm minors, such as online bullying. The legislation was reintroduced earlier this year.

Instead of relying on centralized approaches to managing children’s online activities, it is crucial for parents to proactively regulate the time their children spend online. Statistics reveal that around 40 percent of children aged 8 to 12 use social media daily, and the average American teenager spends approximately 7 and a half hours per day in front of a screen.  

In addition to protecting children from the corrosive effects of pornography, it’s just not a good idea to spend that much time online. It is detrimental to one’s mental health to spend the entire day in the virtual world. Kids say and do ridiculous things, and they should be able to do that without leaving a digital trail. They should be allowed to be curious, inquisitive, and make mistakes; these are all part of growing up. However, when a foreign power is dictating what American children can and cannot say online, you cannot have a free and open society. Let us hope that this case reveals the totalitarian nature of the British government’s approach to free expression.