The British Prime Minister sketches a future where online speech rules update as routinely as tax bracket, with scrutiny treated as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.
CINDY HARPER
Keir Starmer wants to regulate what British people see online, and he wants to do it fast, with as little parliamentary involvement as possible.
The British Prime Minister told The Mirror he backs a Budget-style annual update process for online censorship rules, a mechanism designed for speed rather than scrutiny.
Budget updates are expedited by convention, with MPs given limited time and opportunity to pick apart what’s being pushed through.
Starmer wants the same treatment applied to the government’s ability to control what appears on social media.
When asked about this, he said: “We’re going to have, we’ll have to think of a device of whether it’s rolling provisions or something like that. But what we can’t have is a government that is stumbling to keep up because it keeps needing to pass provision that takes years before it goes in. People who’ve got children now want to know you’re going to do something that actually helps my child, not something which might take years in the making.”
If you hadn’t noticed, “rolling provisions” is a polite term for a permanent, fast-tracked legislative pipeline where the government gives itself new censorship and surveillance powers year after year, and Parliament barely gets to debate it.
The model Starmer is describing here is sometimes called a “Henry VIII clause,” where ministers can amend primary legislation through statutory instruments that limit debate and bypass the usual parliamentary process.
The government has already tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would allow senior ministers to modify the Online Safety Act and restrict children’s access to specific online services, all without the need for full parliamentary approval.
The justification, as always, is children. Starmer also told The Mirror he now considers himself “open-minded” about banning under-16s from social media entirely, and declared that “addictive algorithms” should be prohibited. He made similar comments in an interview with The Observer, published the same weekend.
He told The Mirror: “This is the platforms trying to get children to stay on for longer, to get addicted. I can’t see that there’s a case for that, and therefore I can see we’re going to have to act.”
He added: “We’ll go through the consultation, but I think I’ll be absolutely clear things will not stay as they are. This is going to change. I don’t think the next generation would forgive us if we didn’t act now.”
Children are always the justification. They were the justification for the Online Safety Act, which has already blocked UK users from accessing support pages for alcohol addiction, child sexual abuse survivor resources, and sexual assault survivor communities on Reddit, along with political and legal content, including parliamentary speeches.
They were the justification when the government said “no platform gets a free pass” and went after Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot.
And they are the justification now, as Starmer pushes for a system where the next round of speech controls gets expedited through Parliament every year, like a line item in the tax code.
Starmer’s timing is telling. A jury in Los Angeles recently ruled that Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design of their platforms, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages to a 20-year-old woman who said childhood social media use had contributed to depression, anxiety, and body dysmorphia.
Meta and Google both plan to appeal. Starmer has said the decision could mark “a turning point” leading to “much stricter content restriction,” and his government source told reporters: “Nothing is off the table when it comes to protecting children online.”
“Nothing is off the table” is the kind of phrase that should make anyone paying attention uncomfortable.
This article (Starmer Pushes Fast-Track Online Censorship Powers) was created and published by Reclaim the Net and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Cindy Harper
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply