Britain’s Online Censorship Law Now Comes With a Crisis Plan for Your Posts

The Online Safety Act – the UK’s censorship law – is getting its “crisis” machinery in place, and in full. As of Monday, November 2, big platforms in the country are expected to have in place a censorship plan that will be waiting in the wings, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, or even before that – if a crisis is merely “likely to occur.”

This is what the regulator’s own paperwork, released on October 12, reveals, with the rules coming into force three weeks later. The crisis rules are part of amendments to two Ofcom codes – the Illegal Content Codes and the Protection of Children Code.

A crisis is defined as “an extraordinary situation in which there is a serious threat to public safety in the United Kingdom” that is highly likely to cause, or have come from, a surge in certain content. Ofcom also said that “local or regional crises may still meet the definition” and “an overseas event may also meet the definition.”

What is covered is content related to terrorism, hate, harassment, stalking, threats and abuse, and what is referred to as “the foreign interference offence” – which is a reference to the National Security Act, and a “misrepresentation” that “may” include “presenting information in a way which amounts to a misrepresentation, even if some or all of the information is true.”

As for the effect of such “misrepresentation,” the Act says it can influence political processes or decisions, and a foreign power can be not only a state, but also its head or government.

The posts that are at risk of being taken down are described by Ofcom as “the most highly protected forms of expression,” including “political speech.”

When a crisis hits – or is about to – these will be the first to go. “A higher risk of false positives is likely to be proportionate,” Ofcom says.

To be able to do all this, platforms must now have in place a crisis protocol, which they “need not publish” – and watch their own warning indicators.

Then, they should send in a senior crisis team “as soon as reasonably practicable if the provider determines that a crisis is occurring or is likely to occur.” Reviewing the situation afterwards should also be done in secret.

Large services will also open “a dedicated channel for law enforcement to contact the provider on matters related to the crisis.” No court order is necessary for this police hotline to be activated.

All this applies to large services (those with over 7 million monthly UK users) that are considered to be at medium risk, and any service that is at high risk. The rules cover user-to-user content on social media, messaging apps, forums, dating apps, games, marketplaces, and some AI tools.

The government has said that these steps “are not mandatory in themselves” – but a platform that follows them “will be treated as having complied” with the law. In other words, anyone who decides to go another way will have to prove to Ofcom that their method is equally effective.

It’s optional – in the British sense of the word.

And don’t worry, Ofcom has more reassurances: “The measures do not enable Ofcom to declare a crisis, nor do they introduce emergency powers.” But the Secretary of State can direct Ofcom to send a public statement notice to platforms, and they should take this into account when deciding whether a crisis is indeed taking place.

Ofcom has been working on the crisis protocol for a while, finalizing it on June 9 – the same day riots spread through Belfast after a stabbing on the Shankill Road. We reported about it then.

Keep reading

Carney takes a swipe at Musk and Starlink, while his government writes seven speech and surveillance bills

In an interview with POLITICO in Montreal on Thursday, following the Canada-EU summit, Carney said: “If you’re connected to a satellite system that a billionaire, almost trillionaire, decides to turn off at one moment or not, that’s not a good idea either.” He did not name Elon Musk or Starlink. The interviewer raised Musk, Starlink and Ukraine, and Carney answered, “Yeah.” He added that Canada would never tie its defences to Musk’s system, “nor would we, given the track record.” POLITICO called the remark the “subtweet of the day.”

The track record includes Musk switching Starlink on for Ukraine in the first days of the war, when Russian missiles were knocking out other communications and the Ukrainian army risked fighting blind. The remark appeared aimed at the Liberal base and at Democrats in Washington who have made Musk a political villain. Had Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre sneered at a named businessman in the same terms, the CBC reaction would likely have been far harsher.

Carney’s broader point, that one powerful actor able to cut people off is dangerous, is a fair one. It also describes his own legislative agenda. At least seven government bills either govern what Canadians can say online or expand state surveillance. Four deal with speech and three with surveillance, and some are already law.

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, received royal assent June 18 and took effect July 18. It creates new offences for displaying certain symbols, adds a stand-alone hate crime offence, writes a legal definition of “hatred” into the Criminal Code and repeals the defence for people expressing, in good faith, an opinion on a religious subject or text. The Department of Justice states that “the law repeals this specific defence,” while maintaining the change does not criminalize religious expression. The government has not explained why a defence it says changes nothing needed to go.

Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, was introduced June 10 and remains before Parliament. It would create a Digital Safety Commission of Canada with three to five cabinet-appointed commissioners empowered to issue orders, investigate, inspect and fine. The government’s fact sheet sets penalties of up to three per cent of global gross revenue or $10 million, whichever is higher, a scale that would fall hardest on the largest platforms, including Musk’s X. Alongside material that is already illegal, such as child abuse imagery and intimate images shared without consent, platforms would have to police “content that foments hatred,” a standard interpreted by commissioners the Liberal cabinet appoints. The framework closely resembles Justin Trudeau’s Online Harms Act under a new name.

Bill C-25, the Strong and Free Elections Act, received royal assent June 18. It makes it a crime to knowingly spread false or misleading information about elections or voting with intent to disrupt an election or affect its results, and bans deepfakes of candidates and election officials made to mislead. Opinion and satire are exempt, but officials working for a government that is itself on the ballot will decide what was false, what a speaker knew and what he intended. The government says the rules now reach activity outside Canada, an odd position for a Prime Minister troubled by one man’s satellites crossing borders.

Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, became law the same day. Most of it targets child predators and sextortion, but it also rewrites criminal harassment. According to the Department of Justice, the prosecutor once had to show the victim feared for their safety. Now it is enough that “a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would fear for their safety,” including through “modern technology.” Rebel News reporters have been labelled harassers by Liberal politicians for asking questions in public, and the lower bar gives that label new legal weight.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, passed the House of Commons in June and is now before the Senate. It lets police demand information on “reasonable grounds to suspect,” allows the public safety minister to order providers to build in technical access for police, which critics call a backdoor, and permits metadata to be kept for up to six months.

Bill C-8, the cyber security act, received royal assent June 15. It lets the minister and cabinet issue orders to telecom companies, with secrecy orders attached, including cutting off service to an individual where “strictly necessary.” Conservative amendments on the public safety committee requiring prior judicial authorization passed, but the Speaker ruled them out of order and they were removed, so judges review such orders only after the fact.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, was among Carney’s first major bills and drew enough backlash over its surveillance powers that the Liberals split it. The border measures moved into Bill C-12 and passed, while C-2 stalled. Its lawful access powers returned as C-22.

Musk cannot jail anyone, levy fines worth three per cent of global revenue, secretly order a phone company to cut off a customer or strip a religious defence from a hate speech trial. The Government of Canada can now do, or soon will be able to do, each of those things. Carney’s remark leaves open who in this country really has a finger on the off switch: the billionaire with the satellites, or the Prime Minister who spent the past year writing the laws to use one.

Keep reading

French Mayor Calls for Discussing ‘Great Replacement’ to Become a Crime

A leading leftist mayor in France has called on the government to outlaw public debate of the “Great Replacement”, thereby potentially turning large sections of the native population into thought criminals.

The Moroccan-heritage mayor of the multicultural Paris suburb of Trappes, Ali Rabeh, accused the so-called “far-right” of being responsible for the shooting which occurred in his city earlier this month, claiming that discussions surrounding the “Great Replacement” had radicalised the suspected shooter, who killed one and injured five others in an alleged retaliation against ethnic and religious minorities for the previous month of riots and looting.

Appearing on France Inter on Friday, Mayor Rabeh said, according to Le Journal du Dimanche, that the 1881 law on press freedom could be amended to include penalties for “those who have presented a group of people, because of their origin, their belonging to a religion, an ethnicity or a so-called race as actors in a replacement process.”

“I think the law needs to be toughened,” he said, claiming that the “provisions preventing incitement to racial hatred” are “insufficient.”

The term was originally coined by French philosopher Renaud Camus, who argued that elites in Western societies viewed their citizens as interchangeable economic units that could be replaced by cheaper migrant labour with little consequence.

Mayor Rabeh specifically pointed to presidential candidate Éric Zemmour, complaining that despite having been convicted for inciting racial hatred, he is “still invited to almost every talk show to spew his hatred and venom without being threatened with anything other than a fine, which for him is insignificant.”

Zemmour, a leading proponent of re-migration in the country, responded: “The Gulag is on the march. Here is the project of their socialist-Islamic Republic.”

The proposal was also criticised by National Rally president Jordan Bardella — the current favourite to become the next prime minister of France — who remarked that the move would “criminalise the feelings of at least 60 per cent of the French, who observe a ‘profound demographic transformation.’ Unless it’s to celebrate it, of course.”

Keep reading

France’s Senate Approves Bill Expanding Police Powers Over Online Speech

France’s Senate has approved a bill that was originally tabled as a means to make rioters pay for the damages they cause – but ended up with provisions that are meant to allow for faster removal of online content at the police’s behest, ban people from social media for committing protest-related offenses, allow the police to fly as many drones as they want equipped with cameras, and use AI to analyze footage from those drones, as well as from CCTV cameras.

All this was added to the “casseurs-payeurs” (rioters-pay) bill in the form of amendments, which senators approved on October 27 by 229 votes to 105. The bill was first submitted on September 16, and it had only five articles that made no mention of any of these issues.

The government’s use of the accelerated procedure means that after one reading in the National Assembly, the bill can go to a joint committee of both chambers.

All the quotes below are from the Senate’s record of the debate, translated from French.

“Social networks can contribute decisively to violence and damage, in particular through the dissemination of content calling for these offenses to be committed,” is how the government justified its amendment that was adopted with 219 votes to 115.

The amendment allows the administrative authority, rather than a judge, to order platforms and hosts to remove content that is seen as provoking crimes such as attacks on life, theft and destruction, where it is likely to cause a serious disturbance of public order.

If a host fails to remove such content within 24 hours, it will face six months in prison and a 150,000 euro fine, or up to two percent of its worldwide turnover for a company. The authority will also be able to have the site blocked and removed from search results.

The request goes to a designated reviewer, rather than a judge, before the content is removed.

The original filing of the amendment had a one-hour emergency procedure for content that calls for “an attack, for insurrection or for arming against the State” – but Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez pulled it in the chamber, saying, “I have just rectified my amendment so that we can secure the emergency procedure during the shuttle [between chambers], in view of risks regarding [EU-law] conformity and constitutionality.”

So this provision is expected to be back later in the legislative process.

Keep reading

Hours After Re-Election, Socialist Lula’s First Move: “We’re Going to Have to Regulate the Social Media Platforms”

Barely hours after Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court declared him the winner of a historic fourth term, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva wasted no time revealing his priorities.

Standing before supporters in São Paulo on the night of October 25, the 80-year-old Workers’ Party leader declared that his campaign had been forced to overcome “interference coming from outside to inside through digital platforms” and that “we’re going to have to regulate them.”

According to Brazilian reporting citing CNN Brasil, Lula said:

“This was an election in which we had to overcome interference from outside, through digital platforms, which we will have to regulate.”

He continued:

“It is not possible that we are not aware that crime in the digital world must be treated like crime in the real world.”

He attacked “monstrous companies” that “earn millions and billions, pay no taxes in this country, and try to direct the electoral result.”

Keep reading

French PM Puts Telecoms On Alert For Nationwide Social Media Blackout As Far-Left Riots Spiral

Student grievances may have sparked the unrest, but one communist protester explained the turmoil in the streets is part of a broader revolution against “Macron and capitalism.”

Prepare For Nationwide Social Media Blackout

By late Saturday evening, French authorities had detained almost 1,000 people during demonstrations and riots that drew at least 400,000 participants, while far-left uprisings spread across other parts of Europe.

About 110,000 people demonstrated in Paris, according to the Interior Ministry. The government deployed about 70,000 officers across major metro areas.

Michael Shellenberger reports:

France’s Prime Minister asked telecom companies to prepare to block social media platforms. “I wish to have the ability to temporarily suspend access to these services in case of a repeat of urban violence.”

Separately, far-left unrest emerged in Albania, Spain, and Brussels, as well as in Italy’s cities of Naples, Rome, and Milan.

Footage from across Europe today, as communists stage a broader revolutionary movement:

Keep reading

Every Bad Idea Australia Ever Had About the Internet, Now in One Bill

A “safety net upstream” – that’s how Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells described the intent behind the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, introduced to the country’s Parliament on Thursday.

Wells was making the announcement hours before she was to address the National Press Club. The bill, which is 90 pages long, carries a civil penalty of up to 60,000 penalty units, or $109.2 million, for failing the duty.

In Parliament, Wells said, “It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product to stop the harm before it ever reaches an Australian.”

At the Press Club, she put it this way: setting “basic safety standards for the online services we use every day” will see the platforms regulated “just like we have in every other industry.”

Wells said that the goal is to “shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur.”

She added: “To make this abundantly clear, we have removed the ministerial rule-making power to define new harms in the final bill.”

Instead, she said, “New harms can be added by parliament through legislative amendment.”

The takedown changes in Schedule 1 kick in the day after Royal Assent, while the duty of care itself comes into force 12 months later.

In September, the exposure draft gave the minister the power to add, by instrument, any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.” That power is now gone.

The bill does not at any point ask platforms to balance their “duty of care” with the need to protect freedom of expression and privacy of users.

Section 26 sets the duty: a platform “must take appropriate action to ensure a safe online environment, including by taking effective measures to mitigate risks.”

Section 26A spells out what counts as “appropriate” and “effective.” The matters to be taken into account “include” how far the measures achieve “a safe online environment,” how much they reduce the risk of harmful material, “the impact on the security of the online service,” and “whether the action or measures are or would be proportionate to the level of risk.”

Section 26A(3) states: “The cost of the action or measures must not be taken into account.”

Nowhere in this is freedom of expression or privacy mentioned. The word “encryption” does not appear at all in the 90 pages, nor do the phrases “freedom of expression” or “free speech.”

In the UK Online Safety Act – which is no friend of free speech, either – there is at least a section (22) that imposes on platforms, when deciding on safety measures, “a duty to have particular regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law,” and a matching duty on privacy.

The Australian bill has no such provision.

Keep reading

Government-Funded Group Helped Push Australia’s Digital Censorship Bill

Teach Us Consent, a group whose latest financial statements show it is nearly 90 percent funded by the Australian government, was one of those who supported the government’s Digital Duty of Care bill, and even stood beside Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as he presented it.

The bill, that the group lobbied for privately and publicly, is a censorship law. It will force platforms to police content more stringently, and gives a minister the power to add to the list of “harms” that they must protect against. The eSafety commissioner will be able to issue removal notices, and can even create “sock puppet” accounts to patrol the internet, and fine platforms up to A$109.2 million.

Teach Us Consent wrote to the Prime Minister’s office on March 30, 2026, in a “private letter” that was co-signed by Digital Rights Watch and Reset Australia, to ask for a meeting to discuss the bill. An adviser replied the next morning, and a meeting was set for April 9. On September 8, the group was by the Prime Minister’s side as he announced the censorship bill, calling it “an example of change from the bottom-up, my Government listening and acting.”

Teach Us Consent then announced that the government “heard our calls and committed to the #FixOurFeeds campaign.” And: “We did it.” But the group did not do it on its own: in the 2024/25 financial year, it had “total revenue of $2,738,561, representing a substantial increase of approximately 975% from the previous financial year’s total of $254,807.” Of that, $2,436,156 was “government funding” – 89 percent.

This is not money the group received to lobby – the government gave it for “Consent resources” aimed at people 16 and older. But the grant guidelines, released under freedom of information, shows that the Department of Social Services approved the content strategy.

The government also gave Teach Us Consent $4.4 million for a porn literacy campaign. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet grant was approved on March 6, 2026.

The bill’s exposure draft was released on September 8, and it reveals that the duty to protect against “harm” will be imposed on social media, games, apps, and AI chatbots.

The eSafety commissioner will have the power to issue removal notices to companies, and the minister will be able to add any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.”

The eSafety Commissioner may assume a “false or fictitious identity” – a sock puppet – and “generate material using an online service (including by means of artificial intelligence).”

Those powers apply “despite anything to the contrary in any other law.” Penalties will reach A$109.2 million.

Opposition communications spokesperson Sarah Henderson said: “It provides the minister with unfettered powers to make any regulation into what she would describe as serious harm.” And: “The government could shut down any content or material that they deem to be harmful.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said: “It’s not about censorship. It’s about giving people control themselves over what they see.”

Network Affects called the feed-choice framing “a ruse,” finding the only explicit reference in the draft is “by providing control over the kind of content that is recommended for the user”: 

“Fourteen vague words in a Bill containing more than fourteen thousand.”

The group had a specific proposal for the legislation, the “Fix Our Feeds” campaign. The page for the campaign on the group’s website states that “it takes just 23 minutes for a social media account mimicking a 16-18 year old boy to be fed misogynistic content, regardless of the account’s viewing preferences.”

The claim was repeated by Minister Tanya Plibersek on ABC Insiders, and it is based on a study conducted by Dublin City University. But the study used only ten accounts, and no real teenagers were involved. Instead, the researcher “watched and liked the video” when shown problematic content.

Keep reading

Pro-censorship Sacha Baron Cohen’s Movie ‘Ali G’ Loses Expected Theatrical Rollout After ‘Racism’ Uproar

Oh my, this is beyond glorious. Sacha Baron Cohen is a big, fat, fascist fan of censorship, and now his new Ali G movie has lost its theatrical rollout after woketards declared it racist.

Let’s play a game: Who said this…? Go on. Try to guess … who said this?

This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.

Is the speaker…

a) The woketards looking to censor the Ali G movie?

b) The fascist Sacha Baron Cohen looking to censor the rest of us, never dreaming his fascist demands would someday be used to kill something of his?

Oh, you know it’s “b,” baby. And now the universe has bent towards justice…

I’m told that this ‘Ali G’ movie will play theatrically for only one week. That’s it. The original plan was for a more robust rollout, but things have changed since then. The film, which is Cohen’s feature directorial debut, has been mired in controversy, especially in the UK. Whether that controversy is what led to a shorter rollout has not been confirmed.

If you remember, Picturehouse Cinemas, a UK cinema chain, announced that it would not screen “Ali G: Who Iz I?” in October, mostly because of the character’s “racist stereotypes.” The campaign is being led by the media-monitoring organization NewsCord, which has urged other major UK cinema chains, including Odeon, Cineworld, Vue, Everyman and Showcase, to refuse to screen the movie.

The group claims Cohen uses satire as a “cover for enforcing racist stereotypes” and has accused the Ali G revival of bringing back a “racist caricature.” More than 27,000 emails (!) have reportedly been sent to cinema chains.

Sacha Baron Cohen doesn’t want to live in a world where “racists” have access to platforms, and now his big comeback movie has been branded racist, and now he’s lost the “robust rollout,” and we should all be happy for Sacha Barton Cohen because he’s getting exactly what he advocated for.

Of course, his Ali G character is not racist. He’s making fun of white kids who adopt black culture, not black people.

Keep reading

“Full-On Truman Show”: Former State Dept. Official Exposes USAID’s Censorship Machine In Brazil

Former State Department official Mike Benz laid out USAID’s sweeping involvement in Brazil’s political and institutional landscape, detailing a network of American funding that reached media organizations, universities, activist groups and organizations involved with the country’s election system.

Benz, who serves as executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, broke down the extent of USAID’s footprint during an appearance on “The Benny Show” with host Benny Johnson.

“What’s happening in Brazil was a full-on Truman show. You had the media funded by USAID. You had the universities funded by USAID. You had the staffers of the Supreme Court and the TSE (Superior Electoral Court), the election court, USAID. You had all the constitutional law advocates funded by USAID. You had the LGBT activists funded by USAID,” Benz explained.

“It’s full spectrum. If you were to walk down a city block in Sao Paulo or, I don’t know, Brasilia, you would have a 360 vision of institutions funded and puppeteered by USAID without ever knowing it,” the former State Department official added. “In fact, USAID, knowing what they were doing, and I need to be careful about what I can and can’t say here, let’s just say, would anyone be surprised, for example, if USAID was going around and telling its grantees in Brazil to remove the USAID logo so that it doesn’t get out that grantee’s connection to USAID?”

Benz said USAID’s influence could continue even after its funding disappeared because institutional and legal changes remained in place.

“They knew what they were doing. They knew how sensitive it was. Would you be surprised, for example, if USAID, which basically set up the censorship state in Brazil, and this is actually something, let me quickly pivot to say, it is true that this is the first Brazilian election since the 2020 municipal elections in Brazil that does not have USAID money slushing around Lula and his allies, but is still an election that is in many ways under the thumb of the ghost of USAID,” he said. “There is something I call kind of the clockmaker’s dilemma, which is USAID, even when you remove it, the institutional and legal changes that a country goes through can live on even if you cut USAID funding down to zero.”

Benz then zeroed in on two of Brazil’s most powerful institutions, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and Superior Electoral Court (TSE): “For example, in Brazil, you have this apparatus through the STF and TSE, the Supreme Court and the basically election court that determines all things around elections, and basically after Bolsonaro won in 2018, the TSE court with Alexandre de Moraes, the famous Voldemort judge, they declared disinformation a threat to free and fair elections, not just disinformation during an election season, but disinformation any time, misinformation, disinformation any time about anything because it could pollute people’s, I don’t know, sense of what’s true or false in the information ecosystem, and so it could have an impact on an election three years away if this false information is allowed to circulate online.”

Benz also went into detail about USAID’s connections to Brazil’s election and judicial establishment.

“That was set up by USAID, USAID flooded the zone, USAID had contact at every level with the TSE court, with the Alexandre de Moraes court,” he said. “I testified to the Brazilian Senate Relations Committee and put pictures from USAID’s website of Alexandre de Moraes being trained by CEPS (Competitive Economy Program), the USAID grantee, by NED (National Endowment for Democracy), the USAID grantee has gotten $3 billion from USAID and was created by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Benz’s remarks come just days after Brazil’s conservatives delivered a powerful showing at the ballot box. Flávio Bolsonaro finished first in the opening round of the presidential election, taking 47.03% of the vote to left-wing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s 45.16%, setting up an October 25 runoff.

Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party emerged as the largest party in both houses of Congress, winning 121 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and expanding its Senate delegation from 15 to 28 seats.

Keep reading