Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

Published

9 months ago

7 minute read

logo

By Dan Frieth

London weighs free speech against trade as Washington pressures Labour to amend online censorship laws.

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.
The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.
According to The Telegraph:
“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”
The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has intensified scrutiny of the law. The president, who has been highly critical of social media censorship, has surrounded himself with influential voices in the tech world, including Elon Musk, whose platform, X, is already preparing to challenge Ofcom’s authority.
“Another source close to the Trump’s (sic) administration suggested the act was viewed as ‘Orwellian’ in the US and could become a flashpoint in negotiations. ‘To many people that are currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,’ they said. ‘The administration hate it [Online Safety Act]. Congress has been saying that [it is a concern] ever since it was enacted. Those in the administration are saying the exact same thing.’”
Musk has publicly condemned the Act, and with Ofcom set to gain new enforcement powers in March, tensions between US tech firms and the UK government are likely to escalate. The entrepreneur recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the UK’s regulatory crackdown.
Free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic have long warned that Britain’s approach to online regulation represents a stark departure from the First Amendment protections enjoyed in the US. The Free Speech Union and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argue that the law’s restrictions on “harmful but legal” speech will lead to widespread content suppression, limiting open debate and investigative journalism.
Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, underscored the looming confrontation between UK regulators and US tech leaders:
“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”
Labour has previously doubled down on online regulation, with its election manifesto promising additional measures to “keep everyone safe online.” However, in the face of potential US trade repercussions, the government’s stance appears to be softening.
From Washington’s perspective, the Online Safety Act has become an obstacle to trade negotiations, raising concerns that UK regulatory overreach could deter American investment. Andrew Hale, a trade policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed that this issue has been a recurring theme in discussions with US officials.
“Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”
With Ofcom’s enforcement powers set to take effect soon, Britain faces a fundamental choice: cling to its stringent online censorship policies or prioritize economic cooperation with the US. The decision could shape the future of free speech in the UK for years to come.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Great Reset / 9 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE: The Nova Scotia RCMP Veterans’ Association IS TARGETING VETERANS with Euthanasia

Daily Caller / 9 hours ago

Spreading Sedition? Media Defends Democrats Calling On Soldiers And Officers To Defy Chain Of Command

Digital ID / 9 hours ago

Leslyn Lewis urges fellow MPs to oppose Liberal push for mandatory digital IDs

Censorship Industrial Complex

Quebec City faces lawsuit after cancelling Christian event over “controversial” artist

Published on November 17, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that lawyers have filed a claim in Quebec Superior Court against Quebec City (City) on behalf of Burn 24/7 Canada Worship Ministries, a Christian organization whose worship event was abruptly cancelled by the City this past summer.

The claim seeks reimbursement of rent, punitive damages, and judicial declarations that the City violated Burn 24/7 Canada’s fundamental freedoms protected under both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Based in British Columbia, Burn 24/7 Canada is a non-profit Christian ministry that organizes musical worship and prayer events across the country. Its July 2025 Canadian tour featured American singer-songwriter Sean Feucht, known for his contemporary Christian music. Mr. Feucht had been portrayed negatively in some Canadian media outlets for his opposition to abortion, his support for traditional marriage, and his public support of U.S. President Donald Trump.

On July 4, 2025, Burn 24/7 Canada signed a lease with the City to hold a worship and prayer event at ExpoCité. The organization paid the full rental fee of $2,609.93 on July 14. However, without notice, the City cancelled the lease on July 23—just one day before the scheduled event—claiming the presence of a “controversial” artist had not been disclosed. Officials stated publicly that ExpoCité had terminated the contract after determining an “artist who generates significant controversy has consequences for ExpoCité’s reputation.”

The City cited sections of the lease related to “illegal solicitation” and “use of premises,” arguing these clauses gave it authority to terminate the agreement. Lawyers representing Burn 24/7 argue this claim is absurd, made in bad faith, and reflective of clear discrimination on the basis of religion and political opinion.

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said, “In this era of cancel culture, it’s easy to see why some private citizens might yield to public pressure. But when government officials do the same, it crosses a line. The City’s conduct is inexcusable and must be punished.”

The lawsuit comes amid a wave of cancellations that swept across Canada in July 2025, after Parks Canada and several municipalities—including Halifax, Charlottetown, and Moncton—revoked permissions for Mr. Feucht’s scheduled events, citing “security” concerns following threats of protest.

In this brief video, constitutional lawyer Mr. Séguin summarizes the details of this matter.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

Published on November 14, 2025

By

logo

By Christina Maas

Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X