TikTok Removes Reform UK Campaign Video Using Online Safety Act “Hate” Censorship Rules

The UK’s Online Safety Act has been in force for less than a year and it is again being used to censor political speech during an election.

TikTok blocked and then deleted a campaign video by Reform UK’s Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Zia Yusuf, after someone reported it under the OSA’s content reporting mechanism.

The video was about immigration policy and takes place during a period of campaigning for a by-election.

TikTok cited its “Hate Speech and Hateful Behavior” rules. The law that gave the complainant the reporting tool and that gives TikTok every financial reason to comply without asking too many questions, is the Online Safety Act.

The OSA was sold to the British public as child protection. The actual legislation requires platforms to police all content against UK law, including broadly defined “hate speech” provisions.

Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to £18 million ($24m) or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. For a platform the size of TikTok, that penalty could run into billions. The rational response to that kind of liability is to delete first and never think about it again.

Under the OSA, platforms must provide UK users with tools to report content they believe is illegal under British law.

TikTok confirmed this is what triggered the action against Yusuf’s video. The notification he received stated: “We have detected this policy violation based on a report that the content violated our Community Guidelines.”

Keep reading

X Agrees to Review Illegal “Hate” Within 48 Hours Under UK Online Safety Act

X has agreed to process the vast majority of content flagged as illegal “hate” under the UK’s Online Safety Act within 48 hours, giving Ofcom, Britain’s speech regulator, a significant new enforcement win.

The platform committed to “review and assess UK suspected illegal terrorist and “hate” content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool on average within 24 hours of it being reported, to be calculated as a mean” and to “review and assess at least 85% of UK suspected illegal terrorist and hate content reported through its dedicated UK illegal content reporting tool within a maximum of 48 hours.”

The deal is a notable reversal for a platform that, less than a year ago, publicly accused Ofcom of taking a “heavy-handed approach” and warned that the Online Safety Act was “seriously infringing” on free expression.

X’s August 2025 statement, titled “What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach,” called out regulators by name and argued that the law amounted to a “conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of ‘online safety.’” That language is gone now. What’s left is a compliance agreement with specific performance targets and a 12-month reporting obligation.

The commitments go beyond speed of review. X also agreed to block access to accounts in the UK if they are reported for “posting UK illegal terrorist content” and deemed to be “operated by or on behalf of a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK.”

The platform will share quarterly performance data with Ofcom so the regulator can audit compliance. And following complaints from organizations that couldn’t tell whether X had received or acted on their reports, X agreed to “engage with experts regarding reporting systems for illegal hate and terror content.”

Who those experts are tells you something about the direction of travel. Ofcom’s own press release names the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) as one of the organizations it worked with to “gather evidence about suspected illegal terrorist content and illegal hate speech online.”

The CCDH is a pro-censorship campaign group co-founded in 2018 by Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney, who went on to become UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.

McSweeney stepped down from CCDH’s board two days after Starmer became Labour leader. The organization maintains close ties to the current government and has stated that its goal was to “kill Musk’s Twitter,” according to leaked internal documents reported by Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker.

Ahmed himself was sanctioned by the US State Department in December 2025 over concerns that his organization had led “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints.” A federal court blocked his deportation with a temporary restraining order.

This is the organization Ofcom chose to help build the evidence base for pressuring X into compliance. Ahmed, for his part, welcomed the deal. Speaking to POLITICO, he said CCDH will be “watching closely to ensure this results in meaningful action, not just words.”

Keep reading

How US hemp ban could criminalize CBD products – and derail Medicare plan

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently started a new pilot to reimburse patients for hemp-derived products – like CBD – but a hemp ban that Congress passed in November could derail the program.

The new program will make certain Medicare and Medicaid recipients eligible for reimbursement for up to $500 worth of hemp products each year and is intended in part to evaluate whether these products could reduce their other health related costs.

But the program’s definition of hemp comes from the 2018 Farm Bill, which created the loophole that has allowed so many cannabis products to be sold outside state-authorized dispensaries. Under the Farm Bill, hemp is any cannabis product derived from plants containing less than .3% delta nine THC. If the hemp ban that passed with last year’s spending bill goes into effect as planned on 12 November (it goes into effect one year after passage), all products containing more than .4mg of THC of any kind will become federally illegal.

This would criminalize “the vast, vast majority of hemp products, including most non-intoxicating CBD products”, says Jonathan Miller of US Hemp Roundtable.

Inesa Ponomariovaite, owner of Nesa’s Hemp, which specializes in CBDA hemp extract, met with members of Congress this week to advocate for laws that would keep her products legal.

“Congress is trying to pass laws on something that they’re not even fully understanding, and that’s really going to affect us,” Ponomariovaite said, who noted that during her meetings, she had to explain the endocannabinoid system to senators who had not heard of it before.

The endocannabinoid system is a system of receptors throughout the brain and other organs that interacts with cannabinoids, which appear in the cannabis plant but also form naturally in the human body. It helps regulate pain, memory, cognitive processing and energy, which is part of why cannabis products affect us the way they do.

Ponomariovaite says products that contain a wide array of cannabinoids have stronger therapeutic effects than isolated CBD, for example, which might be the only type of CBD available should the ban go through.

Lawmakers have been trying to pass legislation to delay the hemp ban or replace it with regulation since it first passed, Miller said. In December, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden re-introduced the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act, which would replace the ban with regulation to ensure hemp products are safe and free of contaminants. Indiana Representative Jim Baird introduced a bill in January that would delay the hemp ban for two years.

Miller blames political tension as to why neither of these laws have yet made it through Congress: “Congress isn’t passing anything these days, it’s so polarized and so partisan that it’s hard for them to pass even the most obvious bills, and so we’re kind of caught up in that.”

While the White House hasn’t proposed any specific counters to the hemp ban, Trump has posted on Truth Social calling for Congress “to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on.”

The Trump administration has taken steps to reschedule cannabis to acknowledge its medical potential, but has also faced political resistance to many of its pro-cannabis policies, including the Medicare-linked hemp pilot program. A group of advocates, including Drug Free America Foundation and Cannabis Industry Victims Educating litigators sued the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, and the CMS administrator, Mehmet Oz, over the program, accusing them of establishing a plan to promote substances that may soon be considered federally illegal without going through proper administrative procedure. The court denied the lawsuit’s attempt to block the program.

Ponomariovaite says that lawmakers are worrying about the wrong thing when they focus their energy on trying to dissect the cannabis plant, making parts of it legal and parts of it illegal. Their focus should instead be on contamination.

“Hemp itself is like a natural soil cleaner. It actually grabs all the micro toxins, the mildew, bacteria, metals, and absorbs them within the hemp plant. So if you extract that plant for medicinal properties, that plant is going to be loaded with toxins,” she said.

Keep reading

Ofcom and the Fantasy of Global Speech Control

Ofcom appears to believe that a website is a kind of television channel. This would explain a lot about what happened on Wednesday, when Britain’s speech regulator fined an American mental health and suicide discussion forum £950,000 ($1.3 million) for hosting speech that is legal in America, on servers in America, operated by Americans.

The site had already blocked British visitors from accessing it, voluntarily, as a gesture of goodwill, despite having no legal obligation to do so and despite Ofcom having no jurisdiction to demand it. Ofcom fined it anyway. The fine is unenforceable.

The site owes Ofcom nothing under American law. And even if the site had never blocked a single British visitor, Ofcom’s case would still make no sense, because a British regulator cannot fine an American citizen for legal American speech on an American server any more than the French postal service can fine you for what you write in your own diary.

Ofcom is the Office of Communications, the British government’s speech regulator. Americans don’t really have an equivalent because most Americans would never stand for one. The closest thing is the FCC, except imagine the FCC could also decide what you’re allowed to say on the internet and fine you if it disapproves.

Under the notorious Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, Ofcom gained the power to decide what speech is permissible online and to fine platforms that host speech the UK government doesn’t like.

That includes speech that is perfectly legal everywhere else on earth. It is, when you think about it for more than four seconds, absolutely mad.

Ofcom launched on December 29, 2003, stitched together from five separate regulators: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Office of Telecommunications, the Radio Authority, and the Radiocommunications Agency.

They all dealt with broadcasting, telecoms, or spectrum. They regulated transmitters, phone lines, and radio frequencies, all of which used publicly owned spectrum and publicly funded infrastructure to push content into British living rooms.

The airwaves belonged to the public. The transmitters were built with public money. If you were using national resources to broadcast to a national audience, it made sense that a national regulator got to set some terms. None of these five organizations were designed to have opinions about what a foreigner writes on a computer in Virginia.

The confusion starts with Ofcom not understanding what a website actually is.

A website does not push anything. Content sits on a server. A visitor actively goes to it and requests it. The data crosses borders only because someone on the other end typed in the URL. Website users are called “visitors” and not “viewers” for exactly this reason. They go to the site. The site does not come to them.

This is not a complicated distinction. A reasonably bright nine-year-old could grasp it over breakfast. Ofcom, apparently, cannot.

The regulator is treating a website in Virginia as though it were a transmitter on a hill in Surrey and claiming jurisdiction over the server rather than the person visiting it. It’s like fining an American for not stopping British citizens from mailing letters to them.

Keep reading

LA mayoral hopeful Nithya Raman proposes backyard BBQ ban

Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Nithya Raman wanted to ban backyard barbecues for residents during certain high fire danger days across the city.

Raman introduced a motion Wednesday directing city officials to examine emergency restrictions on grilling during Red Flag Warning days, when high winds and dry conditions significantly increase wildfire danger across Los Angeles.

The proposal specifically asks officials to consider possible limits on backyard barbecues, fire pits and other open flames in residential neighborhoods during those high-risk weather events.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who represents much of the San Fernando Valley, stepped in and successfully blocked the proposal by introducing a separate motion that stripped Raman’s barbecue ban.

“The last thing Angelenos need is a ban on hosting a carne asada in their own backyard,” Rodriguez told The California Post.

Keep reading

Oregon Cop Forced to Resign After Bodycam Caught Him Privately Saying ‘F*ck the Somali and Latino Communities, I’m About America!’ While Responding to Anti-ICE Riots

A veteran Oregon law enforcement officer has been forced out of his job simply for privately saying, “F-ck the Somali and Latino community. I’m about the American communities! I’m about America!” while on duty.

Eugene Police Department Officer Martin Siller resigned effective immediately after bodycam footage from January 30 went viral online over the weekend.

The video captured Siller, while responding to protests and riots outside the old federal building in Eugene, making the blunt remarks during a phone call.

Siller also expressed strong support for ICE, said he doesn’t give “a sh-t about illegal aliens,” and mocked the leftist protesters for not having jobs.

Eugene Police Chief Chris Skinner publicly identified Siller after the footage went viral and condemned the remarks as “racist and deeply offensive.”

Skinner claimed that Siller resigned on his own shortly after the video surfaced online, before the department could even begin a full internal review.

The chief also said that the officer quit because the department is so anti-racist.

“One of the things that I was heartened by is the fact that he self-selected out so quickly,” Skinner said during a press conference.

Skinner continued, “Because if this is a department that fostered racism, and protected people that think the way that Martin Siller thinks, then he would have felt protected in this organization, and he doesn’t feel protected in this organization because he got out of here as quickly as he could, because he knew what the inevitable would happen to him.”

Keep reading

Days Away: The TAKE IT DOWN Act Creates a Censorship Mechanism With No Safeguards

The Federal Trade Commission sent letters to 17 major tech companies this week, warning them to comply with the Take It Down Act by May 19 or face fines of $53,088 per violation.

Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, TikTok, X, Reddit, Discord, Snapchat, Pinterest, Bumble, Match Group, Automattic, and SmugMug all got the same message from Chairman Andrew Ferguson.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

“We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act,” Ferguson wrote.

“Protecting the vulnerable, especially children, from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration.”

The law, signed by President Trump in May 2025 with strong backing from First Lady Melania Trump, requires platforms to delete non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes, within 48 hours of receiving a removal request.

Platforms must also find and remove identical copies, provide clear notice about the removal process and let people track their requests. The FTC published a business guidance page alongside the letter spelling all of this out. The definition of “covered platform” is broad enough to capture social media, messaging apps, video sharing, gaming platforms, and essentially any site hosting user-generated content.

Nobody wants revenge porn circulating online. But the law Congress passed is far broader than the problem it claims to solve.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act borrows its structure from the DMCA’s already-controversial notice-and-takedown system, then strips out the safeguards.

Under the DMCA, a takedown request must include a statement under penalty of perjury. False claims can result in liability. There’s a counter-notice process so the person whose content was deleted can push back. TIDA has none of this. There’s no penalty for false claims, no counter-notice, no requirement that the filer prove anything before content disappears. A platform gets a complaint, has 48 hours, and deletes. That’s the entire process and exactly why the Take it Down Act introduces a new censorship mechanism.

The law defines a violation as involving an “identifiable individual” engaged in “sexually explicit conduct,” without defining that conduct narrowly.

Keep reading

Amid UK Turmoil, Push For Digital ID and Cellphone Surveillance Continues

The floundering left-wing Labour Party government in Britain appears intent on imposing as much authoritarianism as possible on the public while it still remains in power, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer using the King’s Speech on Wednesday to confirm plans to introduce a Digital ID system while plans for deep surveillance of private digital devices are revealed.

When in doubt, break glass for more Blairism appears to be the order of the day. Fighting for his political life following a disastrous performance in last week’s local elections, Prime Minister Starmer has not only turned to major figures from the previous Labour government, tapping Blairite veterans former PM Gordon Brown and Deputy leader Harriet Harman to come on board as advisors, he now seems intent on fulfilling his predecessor’s unfulfilled aims, introducing a Digital ID.

Although the Brown government began to introduce such a system, it was eventually scrapped following the 2010 general election, which the Conservative Party made a referendum on the idea. While long classified as fundamentally un-British — with the UK abandoning national identity cards following the Second World War in contrast to many other European nations — the project of a Digital ID has remained a key goal of the scheme’s architect, Former PM Tony Blair, who remains a key power broker in the background of the Labour Party.

On Wednesday, amid ongoing rumours of potential leadership challenges, Starmer’s government outlined its plans for the upcoming parliament in the King’s Speech, in which the Monarch reads a list of priorities written for him by Downing Street.

“My Ministers will also proceed with the introduction of Digital ID that will modernise how citizens interact with public services [Digital Access to Services Bill],” King Charles III told the State Opening of Parliament.

The government has previously pitched the concept as a cure-all for illegal immigration, saying it could be used to ensure that anyone seeking a job or renting a flat has their citizenship or immigration status instantly verified. Other potential uses put forward include accessing government services and collecting health records.

However, opponents have long raised concerns about Digital IDs, particularly regarding privacy and creeping state intervention. The British government has not showered itself in glory in recent years in terms of keeping digital secrets safe, with it recently accidentally leaking a list of thousands of spies, soldiers, and allies on the ground in Afghanistan to the Taliban, undercutting the notion that it would protect the much less sensitive data of average Britons.

Keep reading

Ireland Convicts 78-Year-Old Preacher For Preaching Near Abortion Clinic

Ireland is finally safe.

Clive Johnston has been convicted and can no longer menace the public.

Johnson, 78, is a retired pastor who committed the heinous offense of preaching near the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine.

That was considered within the “safe access zone” under Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.

The Act prohibits “influencing,” “preventing or impeding access,” or “causing harassment, alarm or distress” to a protected person within 100 meters (about 328 feet) of facilities where abortions are performed.

So Johnson was found guilty of “influencing” inside the protected zone and fined 450 pounds (about $614).

Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service told Fox News Digital, “The defendant was found guilty and convicted by the court of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises; and failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone.”

The language of the law is absurdly vague and abusively broad. What constitutes an “influence” is undefined and could include any religious, political, or social exchange. Would it include encouragements to have abortions?

It is equally perverse to treat praying or preaching the same as blocking or impeding access to a clinic. Finally, a hospital engages in a wide array of activities that raise religious or political issues that can be the subject of free speech.

We previously saw several cases in the United Kingdom where people were arrested for silently praying near abortion clinics.

For its part, Ireland has been a leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech. As the leader of the Irish Green Party proclaimed, “We are restricting freedom for the public good.”

By the way, his offense was reading John 3:16, including “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

What could perish in Ireland and the United Kingdom is free expression as speech regulators target bad influences under time, place, and manner laws.

Keep reading

George Bush’s 2005 Fowl Play

A leading columnist for the Washington Post just wrote: “Hantavirus has an incubation period of up to 8 weeks and kills 30-40% of people who show symptoms….It’s not pandemic yet and probably won’t be, but if it were, the rational action would be—lockdown.” She added: “If this thing goes pandemic, I personally will be hiding in my house.”

Yes, and let the workers and peasants deliver food and drink to you while you safely type and tell the rest of us what to do. We know how this works. 

Keep in mind that no one thought this way a quarter century ago. No one was pushing for society-wide lockdowns in the event of a pandemic. 

That changed in 2005. I wrote an article about it at the time. It was my first foray into commentary on pandemic planning. I can recall my shock that George W. Bush gave a presser in which he pushed for lockdowns. I was even more shocked that more people were not alarmed. 

I wrote the following article reprinted below. So far as I know, I was alone in raising protest against this insanity. Here we are 20-plus years later and “lockdown until vaccinate” is the presumed protocol. 

Keep reading