Online Safety Act consultation : Threat to protest and political content

Protest in the UK is under attack. Thousands of peaceful protesters have been arrested on terrorism charges just for holding signs in support of Palestine Action. One man was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that said ‘I support Plasticine Action’. Another for carrying a print out of a Private Eye cartoon. The government is also proposing to prevent or restrict 'repeat' protests.

This crackdown is mirrored online. Proposals in a new Online Safety Act consultation could lead to real time censorship political speech and activism on Palestine and other issues. Terror powers to proscribe organisations that damage property, like Palestine Action or Just Stop Oil, will be enforced through the Online Safety Act to remove any potentially supportive mention of them.

The proposals would mean that:

Lawful activism could be censored as it happens.
Political content about Palestine may auto-delete from your feeds.
The police can clampdown on protest online.

Open Rights Group is urging everyone who cares about democracy and our right to protest to respond to this consultation.

The deadline is October 20 - if we act now we can stop these threats becoming reality.

Take action!

Your data

Send your email

Any personal data you provide will be held in-line with our privacy policy (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/privacy-policy/)

First name *

Surname *

E-mail address *

Street address *

City *

Postcode *

Submit your Response

We encourage you to use your own words if you can. Please edit the text to indicate if you are happy for Ofcom to publish your consutation response or not. Your name, address and phone number will be sent to Ofcom if you complete this form.

Subject *

Consultation Response to Ofcom on Additional Safety Measures under the Online Safety Act *

I am responding to the consultation Additional Safety Measures: Online Safety.

I am concerned that several of Ofcom’s proposals could threaten freedom of expression, the right to protest and democratic debate.

I urge Ofcom to reconsider these proposals. I am happy for Ofcom to publish my response to this consultation.

24. Hash matching for terrorism content 
Ofcom’s proposed “proactive technology” measures are too vague and risk serious over-removal of lawful content.

While Ofcom describes its new proposals as “principles-based”, in practice they amount to a vague and unpredictable regime that fails to meet the human rights requirement that restrictions on speech be “prescribed by law”. Platforms would have wide discretion to decide how accurate their automated filters should be, how many false positives are acceptable, and how much human review is needed, with no clear or consistent standards. Ofcom itself acknowledges this flexibility could cause “significant variation in impact on users’ freedom of expression between services.” Such an uncertain system makes it impossible for users to foresee when lawful posts might be blocked or removed, undermining both freedom of expression and the rule of law.

The UK’s broad definition of terrorism has seen Palestine Action proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Since then, thousands of peaceful protestors have been arrested on terror charges for holding up signs that express support for Palestine Action or oppose its prescription. One man was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that said ‘I support Plasticine Action’. Another for carrying a print out of a Private Eye cartoon. One protestor was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act for signs that said “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”.

The broad definition of terrorism to include "damage to property" means that OSA mandated technologies to scan for terrorist material could be applied to environmental protesters. While this may have appeared a theoretical risk to some, the proscription of Palestine Action makes it a much more tangible risk.

Overreach will be replicated at scale by “proactive technology”. Automated filters can't understand context or nuance. AI scanning of online posts and files will see legitimate political content about Palestine (and more) being flagged as illegal and removed at scale. This is an attack on freedom of expression, protest and the democratic right to debate.

Question 31: Recommender systems.
The non-prioritision of potentially illegal content from algorithmic feeds until it is reviewed could also suppress political activism. As already noted, the automated identification of ‘illegal’ content is  flawed. These powers are particularly concerning when combined with new powers to allow the police to restrict the sharing of content during a crisis.

Question 50 (Definition of a Crisis)
A crisis should be defined only as an immediate and exceptional threat to life or public safety. This definition must be tightly defined to prevent the government and the police using these powers to close down dissent.

Question 52 (Best Practice in Responding to a Crisis)
Livestreaming and social media are essential tools for holding the police and government to account.  If livestreams documenting protests, police actions, or other high-stakes events are removed or restricted, the result could be not only a less informed public but also greater mistrust, fuelling disinformation and unrest. Best practice must therefore include safeguards requiring platforms to preserve livestreams that may constitute evidence of human rights abuses.

Leave this field blank

The Online Safety Act

The Online Safety Act (OSA) has given Ofcom powers over what we say, see and do online. Services have to comply with a large set of complicated rules and regulations. They risk heavy fines and even imprisonment if they don't comply.

Crackdown on protest and political speech

Here’s what’s coming in this consultation:

1) AI scanning for 'illegal' content

Tech platforms will be forced to scan posts for 'illegal' content and remove it before it's even published. Automated filters can't understand context or nuance — legitimate political content about Palestine (and more) could be flagged and removed before anyone sees it. Illegal content includes support for proscribed organisations, including Palestine Action, or other organisations that may be deemed terrorist for damage to property under the Terorrism Act.

2) Suppression by Algorithm

Recommender systems will now have to de-prioritise content that might be illegal until it is reviewed. This is supposed to stop the spread of extremist content but it could mean lawful activism and protest footage is hidden from feeds — even if it breaks no rules.

3) Police-led censorship in a crisis

In a so-called “crisis,” police will have direct lines to tech platforms to demand immediate content takedowns. Without independent safeguards or oversight, live protest footage or dissenting voices could be silenced in real time.

We’ve already seen shadow bans and takedowns on Palestine-related content. These new powers will make it worse.

ORG has created a tool to help you object to these proposals. There is a suggested template response but we encourage you to put your concerns in your own words.. Please be respectful in your use of language when using this tool.

You can also reply directly to Ofcom using their own form.

Please note that unless you indicate otherwise, Ofcom might publish responses to their consultation on their webpage.

Take action!