1 February 2026
More than 50 peers — including three former Cabinet Ministers — have written to the Digital Secretary, Liz Kendall, warning that delays to the implementation of key free speech protections in the Online Safety Act are threatening free speech online.
Although the Online Safety Act has been law for three years, crucial free speech protections have yet to be implemented. In a letter written and coordinated by the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, 56 peers urged Liz Kendall to implement the measures urgently so that “social media companies will take freedom of expression as seriously as Parliament intended”.
The peers’ concerns relate primarily to two sections of the Act. The first requires platforms to consider the “importance of the free expression of content of democratic importance”, particularly when restricting or removing content, or suspending or banning users. The second imposes duties on tech firms to protect journalistic content, including the establishment of a “dedicated and expedited” complaints system for individuals and organisations to challenge “wrongful” blocks on their writing or posts online.
Senior signatories to Lord Young’s letter include Lord Gove, Editor of The Spectator; former Deputy Prime Minister Baroness Coffey; and former newspaper editors Lord Moore and Baroness Fleet. The letter was also signed by the Chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, Lord Faulkes; newspaper owner Lord Lebedev; and Baroness Stowell, a former Chair of the Communications and Digital Committee.
Implementation of these two crucial sections of the Act has been delayed because Ofcom — the Act’s regulator — has yet to decide which platforms should be designated as “category 1” services under the Online Safety Act. Such a designation would require platforms to introduce free speech protections and establish systems allowing adult users to decide what content they do and do not want to see. Given that the Online Safety Act was passed by the previous government three years ago, it is deeply concerning how little progress has been made in respect of free speech protections.
Lord Young of Acton has said: “we are in the invidious position where onerous duties in the Online Safety Act requiring services to restrict and remove content, and suspend and ban users, are in place, but the free speech safeguards are not”.
He went on to add that “The result is that material which would be protected were these protections in place is routinely being restricted or removed and users who would be protected are being penalised.”
The absence of these protections has already led to a series of troubling examples of online censorship. Last year, Conservative MP and Shadow Home Office Minister Katie Lam made a speech in the House of Commons detailing the suffering of victims of the grooming gangs scandal, which she later posted on her X account. The content of her speech was subsequently age-gated on X, preventing users under the age of 18 from accessing it. This represents a clear example of content of democratic and public importance being restricted as a result of inadequate free speech protections.
Ironically, Spiked’s new documentary on online censorship — which was also posted on X — was itself censored under the Online Safety Act, as was a call for single-sex spaces to be protected and a tweet detailing the life of Marcus Claudius Marcellus. While these incidents demonstrate the farcical nature of Ofcom’s onerous restrictions, the fact that a democratically elected representative had her speech censored shows something far more sinister.
Peers also noted in the letter that, in light of the voting age being lowered to 16, “How are 16- and 17-year-olds supposed to make informed choices about how to vote if they cannot access journalistic content or content of democratic importance?”
