Changes since 17th March 2025 and how they impact social media users
FRANCES LEADER
The Online Harms Bill in the UK has been enacted as the Online Safety Act 2023, which aims to regulate online content and protect users from illegal and harmful content. The act requires online platforms to take action against illegal content and content that could be harmful to children, and it empowers Ofcom, the UK media regulator, to enforce these regulations. Companies that fail to comply can face fines of up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher.
.
The act was criticised for its potential to restrain lawful but harmful speech, effectively creating a new form of censorship of otherwise legal speech. As a result, measures intended to force big technology platforms to take down “legal but harmful” materials were removed from the bill in November 2022.
The Online Safety Act 2023 was passed on 26 October 2023 and came into effect on 17 March 2025
Tech companies are now required to implement safeguards to prevent illegal harms such as encouraging suicide, extreme pornography, and selling drugs. It includes provisions for criminal offenses related to encouraging serious self-harm and cyber-flashing, and it grants significant powers to the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom on the exercise of its functions.
The Act has significant implications for citizens’ online behaviour in the United Kingdom
The act aims to protect both children and adults from illegal and harmful content online by imposing new legal duties on online service providers. Here are some key impacts:
Content Regulation
Online platforms are required to take action against illegal content and content deemed harmful to children. This includes removing or blocking access to such content, which may affect what users can view or share online.
Age Verification
Companies must prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate content. This may involve implementing age verification mechanisms, which could impact how users, especially younger ones, access and use online services.
This may result in users being required to use real names, addresses and proof of date of birth to verify their accounts.
Reporting Mechanisms
Social media companies and other online platforms must provide clear and accessible ways for users to report problems and make complaints. This could lead to more user engagement in monitoring and reporting harmful content.
Fines and Enforcement
Platforms that fail to comply with the act’s requirements can face significant fines, up to £18 million or 10% of their annual turnover, whichever is higher. This enforcement mechanism is expected to encourage stricter content moderation and compliance.
Ofcom’s Role
Ofcom, the independent regulator, is responsible for enforcing the act and raising awareness about online safety. Ofcom’s codes of practice and guidance will play a crucial role in shaping how platforms implement the act’s requirements.
Censorship Concerns
Some organisations, such as Article 19 and the Open Rights Group, have raised concerns that the act could lead to over-censorship and infringe on free speech. They argue that the act’s broad definitions of harmful content and the threat of harsh penalties could result in the removal of legitimate content.
End-to-End Encryption
The act includes provisions that allow Ofcom to issue notices requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption, though the government has stated these powers will not be used immediately. This has sparked debates about privacy and security, with some tech firms suggesting they may withdraw from the UK market rather than weaken their encryption. Bitchute has withdrawn their services to the UK.
.
User Rights and Protections
The act includes provisions to protect journalistic and democratically important content, ensuring that such content is not arbitrarily removed. This is intended to balance the need for content regulation with the protection of free expression
Overall, the Online Safety Act 2023 is expected to significantly alter the online landscape in the UK, with both positive and potentially negative impacts on user behaviour and content availability.
The Online Safety Act 2023 has already led to significant legal actions, including arrests and convictions, particularly in cases of cyber-flashing and other forms of online harassment.
First Cyber-Flashing Conviction
Nicholas Hawkes, from Basildon, Essex, became the first person to be convicted and imprisoned under the Online Safety Act 2023 for the criminal offense of cyber-flashing. Hawkes, a 39-year-old registered sex offender, was convicted for sending unsolicited explicit images, including a photograph of his genitals, to a 15-year-old girl and another woman. His actions were reported to the authorities, leading to his arrest and conviction on December 13, 2024. Cyber-flashing, which is defined as sending or giving a relevant image to another person with the intention of causing alarm, distress, or humiliation, or for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and being reckless as to whether the recipient will be caused alarm, distress, or humiliation.
Suicide forum first to be investigated by Ofcom under new online safety laws
The watchdog said it was looking at whether the forum failed to have appropriate measures to protect users from illegal content and how it could be used to commit or facilitate “priority” offences, including encouraging or assisting suicide.
The provider and forum have not been named. ~ Sky News
The government’s intention with these new offenses is to make it easier to convict individuals who share intimate images without consent and to better protect the public. The Act also places significant regulatory duties on online platforms to ensure user safety, with penalties for non-compliance, including fines and the potential for website blocks.
Sharing private images without consent
.
It is a criminal offence to share, retweet, forward or otherwise pass on a private sexual photograph or film without consent. The UK Government has created a comprehensive campaign to make the public aware of this offence, and you can find out more information here.
The Online Safety Act has faced criticism
Various organisations, including Article 19 and the Open Rights Group, argue that this Act poses a threat to human rights and could lead to over-censorship. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that requiring degraded end-to-end encryption is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which may form the basis for legal challenges to the Act in the near future.
Offensive posts
Contrary to popular belief, you cannot simply post whatever you wish on social media. Many social media platforms have built-in monitoring algorithms to prevent offensive posts. When you sign up to a platform, you are agreeing to abide by their ‘community rules’. If you break these rules, you could have your account suspended and, in some cases, further action might be taken.
Can I be prosecuted for an offensive post?
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has outlined that in order to face charges for a social media post, the post must amount to a credible threat of violence, be a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual or breach a court order.
Can my employer dismiss me over a social media post?
Prosecution is not the only concern. Employees in the UK can face disciplinary action or even be dismissed from their job if they post inappropriate content on social media. Many employers have a social media policy that clearly sets out employees’ expectations on social media. Generally, any comments that damage the brand’s reputation, including comments about customers or the business, could be grounds for dismissal.
Reviews
Reviews can help us decide where we want to go and the businesses we choose to buy from, but leaving a false review could see you end up in court. Negative reviews can be incredibly damaging for businesses, and if the statements in such a review turn out to be false, the business could take legal action against the person who posted the review.
Ads, gifts and sponsorship
Ever noticed some influencer posts that include “#ad”? Declaring ads is the law, but it applies to more than you might think. If you have received a product, service, meal or trip for free, you must declare it as an “ad” in your social media post – even if you are not an influencer. You can find out more information here.
Despite complaints and criticisms, the UK government believes that this Act remains a significant step in the UK’s efforts to combat online harm and protect users, particularly children, from illegal and harmful content.
In the UK, social media posts that are deemed threatening or offensive can be prosecuted under several other laws
The primary laws used for this purpose are:
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003
This law criminalises causing distress by sending messages that are “grossly offensive” or by sharing content of an “indecent, obscene, or menacing character” via electronic communications networks.
Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988
This act also targets the sending of offensive, indecent, or menacing messages, but specifically through postal or electronic communication. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has outlined that in order to face charges for a social media post, the post must:
– Amount to a credible threat of violence
– Be part of a targeted campaign of harassment against an individual
– Breach a court order
The Terrorism Act 2000
This act outlines several key offences related to proscribed organisations:
Membership of a Proscribed Organisation
It is a criminal offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation. This offence has extra-territorial jurisdiction, meaning it applies to British nationals and UK residents regardless of where the membership is held.
Inviting or Recklessly Expressing Support for a Proscribed Organisation
It is an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation or to recklessly express support for such an organisation. This offence also has extra-territorial jurisdiction for British nationals and UK residents.
Displaying or Publishing Articles
It is an offence to wear or display articles in public that are likely to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. This includes clothing, badges, and other items.
Addressing Meetings
It is an offence to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities. However, there is a defence if the meeting is private and the person can prove they had no reasonable cause to believe that the address would support the proscribed organisation or advance its terrorist activities.
Possession of Terrorist Publications
Possessing or distributing terrorist publications, which include materials that glorify or promote terrorism, can also lead to prosecution.
These offences are designed to disrupt and prevent the activities of terrorist organisations and their supporters. The penalties for these offences can include imprisonment and fines, with the severity depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
British independent journalists have faced arrests and detentions under anti-terrorism laws for their reporting on war zones and human rights issues, particularly in the Middle East.
Here are some notable cases:
Richard Medhurst
A Syrian-British independent journalist known for his work opposing U.S., British, and Israeli war crimes in the Middle East, Medhurst was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was detained for nearly 24 hours, questioned, and had his electronic devices seized. Medhurst had criticized the Terrorism Act before his flight and expressed disgust at being politically persecuted in his own country. Medhurst has not been formally charged. His detention and the seizure of his devices were part of an investigation, but no charges have been filed against him. Find him on Substack:
Sarah Wilkinson
.
A British artist, journalist, and supporter of Palestinian rights, Wilkinson’s home was raided by UK counter-terrorism police, and she was detained for hours before being released on bail. Her arrest is seen as part of an escalation by the British government against left-wing journalists and critics of the Israeli campaign in Gaza. Wilkinson has not been charged with any crimes. Her detention was part of an investigation, but no formal charges have been brought against her. According to the website World Socialist Web, Wilkinson has been a critique of Zionism for a long time. Most of her posts on social media are about the Israel-Palestine conflict. She also works as a reporter for the news portal MENA Uncensored – a media company recognised by Lebanon’s Ministry of Information.
Asa Winstanley
.
The home of Asa Winstanley, a journalist for The Electronic Intifada, was raided by British counter-terrorism police, and his devices were seized. This raid is part of a broader trend of using counterterrorism legislation to target journalists and activists reporting on or protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza. No formal charges have been brought against him. https://www.asawinstanley.com/about/
Find him on Substack:
Criticism and concern
These arrests have been widely condemned by press freedom organisations and unions, such as the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), which have expressed concern over the chilling effect on press freedom and the disproportionate use of anti-terror laws against journalists.
Ofcom Statement: Protecting people from illegal harms online
“Providers now have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, with a deadline of 16 March 2025. Subject to the Codes completing the Parliamentary process, from 17 March 2025, providers will need to take the safety measures set out in the Codes or use other effective measures to protect users from illegal content and activity. We are ready to take enforcement action if providers do not act promptly to address the risks on their services.”
Further information – Schmidt, H. (2024). The online safety act 2023. Journal of Media Law, 16(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2025.2459440
—0—
If you appreciate my research but cannot commit to a paid subscription you could buy me a coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/FrancesLeader
Please note that all my work is entirely free to read and will never be hidden behind a paywall. My lovely paying subscribers contribute knowing this to be true and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them very much for their ongoing support.
The important thing is sharing this educational information on social media, especially on X and Facebook and Discord where I am permanently excluded because my work upsets the totalitarians.
ONWARDS!
xx
This article (UK ONLINE CENSORSHIP) was created and published by Frances Leader and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
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