When President Donald J. Trump met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today, Starmer insisted that Britain has “had free speech for a very, very long time.” That time ended Friday, with the implementation of the so-called Online Safety Act. As decades of mass migration and neoliberal interventionism took their toll, popular anger grew over the alienation of the British from their own native homeland. Unwilling to represent the true interests of their people, British politicians endeavored to replace them. In a country of just 68 million people, it absorbed an estimated 17.1 million people just since the year 2000. 67.4% of children born in London have at least one foreign parent. Now, as anger over the replacement of the British People in their native homeland gathers, the United Kingdom has resolved at last to censor their complaints.
In September 2023, an allegedly “conservative” government passed the Online Safety Act, whose moniker is one of the finest modern examples of Orwellian Newspeak. The OSA hands draconian censorship powers to an unelected government agency called Ofcom, which puts King Charles III in the running for “worst King Charles.” Under this legislation, Ofcom is tasked with enforcing a “duty of care” that websites now have which obligates them to “protect” people from any content that Ofcom’s bureaucrats deem illegal. Ofcom’s current definition of illegal hate speech includes “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred” against a slew of protected minorities—an ambiguous definition that includes any criticism of the British government’s endless migration policy. Instead of calling it censorship, they term it “online safety.”
What Keir Starmer pretends is a simple effort to protect the safety of children online is in fact a comprehensive attempt by his government to seize control of the internet on an extraterritorial basis, sweeping Americans into Ofcom’s absurd dragnet. Under the new regulations that took effect Friday, social media companies that service users within the UK must “protect their users” from supposedly “harmful content.” If they fail to do so, Ofcom may fine them up to £18 million British pounds (about $24 million USD) or 10% of the company’s global revenue – whichever is larger. To mask this overt censorship, Ofcom pretends that these massive fines are needed to prevent children from accessing pornographic or suicide-related content. This exploitative messaging is designed to conceal the truth; Ofcom’s own documents show how wide a category “harmful content” actually is.
To Ofcom, “harmful content” includes just about any information that Keir Starmer may dislike at any given moment. Social media companies must protect their users from “false information intended to cause non-trivial harm,” a catch-all for everything from opposition to the migrant invasion to questions about the efficacy or safety of the Covid vaccines. It also bans “hate crimes,” a similarly expansive category,” and “terrorism,” like mothers at school board meetings or run-of-the-mill conservative politics. One only need look at how Keir’s Starmtroopers arrested Adam Smith-Connor for silently praying outside of an abortion clinic in Bournemouth to envision how these censorship powers will be misused.
To enforce these laws, Ofcom’s new regulations require social media companies to drastically alter how their platforms operate. First, social media companies must begin verifying the age of their users before it allows them to access “harmful content.” (Want the truth about the grooming gang scandals that Keir Starmer covered up as head of the Crown Prosecution Service? ID, please.) Platforms must then adjust their algorithms to prevent children from being shown anything the British government deems misinformation or hate speech. As “children” is a category that includes any users who may refuse to show their driver’s license to access X or Facebook, this rule effectively bans conservative or other “undesirable” content from being suggested to most users. Finally, platforms must remove any content Ofcom deems illegal.
In short, this legislation is not at all an attempt to protect children. Rather, it constitutes a comprehensive censorship regime that destroys any company that refuses to comply. In the early 2000s, the American government realized that the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance of American citizens was illegal. Never content to let the law rein in their plans, they contracted the surveillance to the GCHQ, their counterparts in the UK. Thus, the GCHQ spied on American citizens for many years and funneled the information to the NSA. There is real danger that, without President Trump in the White House, Democrats will outsource their efforts to censor the speech of American citizens to Ofcom to bypass the First Amendment. If the Trump Administration does not quickly take action to rein in the rogue Starmer Regime now, the free speech rights of Americans may be in peril.
The New York Young Republican Club is deeply concerned about the civil liberties of our brothers and sisters in the United Kingdom. As their government floods Great Britain with millions of migrants, as foreigners groom their children in Rotherham and bomb their concerts in Manchester, British politicians act not to protect their people from these dangers but to censor knowledge and restrict Britons’ right to protest their own destruction. If the noble English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish cannot be extricated from this quagmire, it may prove to be the death knell for the long tradition of British civil liberties. The Trump Administration should consider using every lever of power, including sanctions, to force Parliament to repeal this legislation.
Ultimately, however, the final responsibility to protect Great Britain resides with the British People. Nigel Farage and the Reform UK Party promised in a press conference today to repeal this legislation “as one of the first things a Reform government does.” Party chair Zia Yusuf said the OSA “plunges this country into a borderline dystopian state.” With local elections scheduled for May 2026, it is not too soon to start rescuing Britain from the consequences of late-stage democracy. Reform UK presents a viable alternative to the current British uniparty and we wish them success. Because if elections fail to address these problems, the future of Great Britain may be very dark, indeed.