Internet News

Ofcom were grilled by Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 20th October 2026. The committee is investigated the effectiveness of Ofcom in enforcing internet censorship laws contained in the Online Safety Act.

The act has been in force for about 15 months and in that time Ofcom have issued 11 fines mostly to porn websites for failing to implement ID/age verification. Other websites targeted were the US based free speech forum 4Chan, and also the widely reviled Sanctioned Suicide forum.

Ofcom boss Melanie Dawes admitted that tech firms have paid just the two smallest of the eleven fines handed out under the Online Safety Act since March last year. She conceded nine remain unpaid, albeit one of these has not yet passed its due date and another is being appealed.

She did point out that two of the nine have now implemented the required ID/age verification and four have self geo-blocked all users with a UK IP address. Three are totally defying Ofcom by continuing on unchanged.

Dawes added that enforcement measures have run against a brick wall for foreign companies without a presence in the UK. She said:

We won't be able to recover every single fine on online safety. If foreign courts decide try and get in our way, there will be a point at which we have to accept that we won't be able to recover that money.

The US lawyer representing some of the US victims of the censorship law Preston Byrne had been particularly vocal about Ofcom's censorship attempts by shredding Ofcom's censorship letters and using them at hamster litter. He continually challenged Ofcom to fight him in the US courts where the famous First Amendment to the US Constitutions guarantees free speech for all Americans. Byrne colourfully explains:

Unless Ofcom is prepared to sail a British invasion fleet here and land ground troops, enforcement would indeed have to proceed through American courts. Which presents the following problem for Ofcom:

American courts generally decline to enforce foreign judgments that violate the United States Constitution.

It would be a gift to 4chan if Ofcom decided to show up in an American court after all this, waiving sovereign immunity and thus facing the prospect of an adverse merits ruling in the process. Filing that lawsuit would be suicidal, leading to virtually certain defeat and total loss of enforcement credibility in the United States. It will almost certainly never happen, not for 4chan, and likely not for any other American target, either.

What will happen next is that Ofcom is going to go back to Parliament to ask for the authority to obtain interim business disruption measures --  i.e., more or less unilateral censorship powers to block foreign websites in the UK before starting an enforcement process, rather than after. These powers were explicitly rejected by Parliament the last time around and have even now been repudiated by Nadine Dorries, the former MP who introduced the Bill, having seen what a mess Ofcom has made of it. These powers will also be easily defeated through the use of a VPN.

The UK thus continues its authoritarian backsliding. Sorting out their own country is, ultimately, a matter for the British, and opposing the grant of new powers for Ofcom -- an agency which was held off by a pair of American solo lawyers working for free -- on domestic policy grounds is a task for the growing UK free speech movement to take up, with urgency.

Ofcom bosses also explained to the parliamentary committee that geo-blocking UK users from access to website is as far as censorship actions can go. If a website self-geo-blocks there is little point pursing an ISP block as that effectively adds nothing further to the censorship. UK VPN users will still be able to access the website either way.

On Monday 2 November, MPs will debate a petition relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s.

Tony Vaughan MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. MPs from all parties can take part, and the Government will send a minister to respond.

The petition reads:

Do not ban social media for under 16s

The petition, which received more than 217,000 signatures, states: I think the government shouldn't ban social media for under 16s. This is because for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some people view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network. This is why I think the government shouldn't ban it.

In its response to the petition, provided on 4 March 2026, the Government said:

The government recognises the benefits of digital technologies, including social media, for children. We are consulting on how to ensure children have an enriching and positive experience online.

See full response from petition.parliament.uk

Petitions debates are general debates which allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers.

Petition debates don't end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means MPs will not vote on the request of the petitions at the end of the debate. Instead, the aim is to give MPs an opportunity to discuss the issues raised by a petition, and get a response from the Government.

From 6 November 2026, it will be a criminal offence in England and Wales to possess or publish pornographic images that explicitly and realistically depict:

• strangulation or suffocation

• penetrative sexual activity between people who a reasonable person would think are related, or pretending to be related, in a certain way. This includes depictions of close familial relatives such as father and daughter or brother and sister, and certain step and foster relationships where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18

• sexual activity between at least 2 people where a reasonable person would think at least one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The offences only capture pornography that shows people which appear, to a reasonable person, to be real.

The maximum penalty for possession is:

• 2 years' imprisonment for pornography that depicts strangulation or suffocation, or penetrative sexual activity between certain relatives;

• 3 years' imprisonment for pornography depicting sexual activity involving a person who is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The maximum penalty for publication for all offences is 5 years' imprisonment.

There are defences available for these offences. For example, a person may have a defence to the possession and publication offences if they had not seen the image before and did not know, or have cause to suspect, that it was an image covered by the offences.

There is also a defence where the person who possesses or publishes the image directly participated in the act shown in the image and other criteria are met. For the possession offences, there is also a defence where a person was sent the image without asking for it (either themselves, or through a third party) and did not keep it for an unreasonable length of time.

The offences also attract a defence of legitimate reason for possessing or publishing the image.

What we mean by possession and publication

The term possess is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether a person possesses an image will be a question of fact for the court in each case. However, we consider that possessing an image will generally mean having custody or control of it. This could include where an image is stored on a device, retained in a personal account or cloud, saved in files, or otherwise kept physically or virtually.

Publish is defined in the offences to include giving or making an image available to another person by any means. This could include uploading, posting, sending, sharing or distributing an image. What we mean by strangulation and suffocation

The term strangulation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts strangulation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that strangulation generally means one person applying pressure to another person's neck.

The term suffocation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts suffocation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that suffocation will generally mean depriving a person of air in a way that affects their ability to breathe. Unlike strangulation, this does not require pressure to the neck. It could, for example, involve covering someone's mouth and nose or compressing their chest.

What you need to do before 6 November 2026

Possession is a continuing act. If you already possess an image covered by these offences, you will need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before 6 November 2026 to avoid committing an offence once the offences come into force.

Publication can also be a continuing act. If you have uploaded, posted or otherwise made an image covered by these offences available whether online or offline, you will need to remove it and stop making it available to others before 6 November 2026.

If you possess or are continuing to publish an image covered by these offences, you must stop doing so before they come into force. This means if you possess it, you need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before commencement. If you are continuing to publish it (whether online or offline), you need to remove it and stop publication before commencement.

The government has commissioned British Board of Film Censorship to test the feasibility of censoring online pornography for violent and abusive content.

The pilot by the BBFC will inform ministerial decisions on the most effective way to censor world wide websites potentially resulting in a formal online censor.

A government commissioned review by anti porn peer Gabby Bertin has resulted in new criminal offences for the publication and possession of certain types of online pornography, including strangulation, incest, step-incest and adults role-playing as children.

The laws will come into force by the 6th November. However Baroness Bertin said for the legislation to be effective there also needed to be more proactive regulation, including spot checking and auditing.

Bertin's review had suggested the BBFC audit websites, given its experience monitoring offline pornography for 40 years. They have previously raised concerns about the disparity between online and offline regulation and said they stand ready to expand their remit.

They were awarded a three-month contract for an Audit of Internet Services pilot in July. The pilot includes generating evidence on the availability of certain online pornographic content and evaluating how it could be monitored and reported on at scale given the huge size of the market.

Such a porn censor would need funding for staff to monitor content as well as new technology. Baroness Bertin proposed a model where porn companies as well as social media companies and search engines pay for it.

Bertin suggested that users would appreciate a BBFC censored website saying:

You are then saying to users, we are tried and tested and if you come into our site you won't see illegal content.

She said as well as monitoring for illegal content, an auditor could draw up guidance to address the grey area of material that is not illegal but would be banned in the offline world. It could also do spot checks for age of performers and consent, and help bring down sites that are not behind an age gate or are showing illegal content - either through having its own statutory powers or working alongside Ofcom.

Ofcom has the power to fines sites that don't comply with new age verification requirements that came into force last year as part of the Online Safety Act, but Baroness Bertin said the system is too slow. It should also be noted that only a couple of websites have actually paid Ofcom fines.

The French National Assembly has backed off from a proposal to criminalize the purchase, and/or facilitation by online platforms, of sexual services performed remotely by streamers and custom content creators.

French criminal law punishes clients of prostitutes as well as anyone who profits financially from prostitution. However, Frances highest court has ruled that online services such as camming do not fall under the definition of prostitution.

In the original version of Bill 3106, which is aimed at addressing sexual and gender-based violence against women and children, Article 25 would have broadened the definition of prostitution to include the online purchase of sexual acts, treating online platforms that facilitate streaming and custom content as 'pimps,' and users who tip streamers or commission customs as 'johns.'

Such a ban could have led to enforcement against fan and webcam platforms, their users, and conceivably even against creators who collaborate together. A similar ban was enacted in Sweden last year.

Assembly member Sarah Legrain told legislators:

We are not talking about platforms that allow clients and people engaged in prostitution to meet in person, but rather about acts carried out behind a camera ... a customer at a strip club can pay to physically attend a striptease; however, someone who requests footage of a striptease from a consenting individual, filmed at home--in a setting likely more protective than that of a strip club--could be prosecuted, as could the landlord of the apartment and the platform that hosted the content. Similarly, it is perfectly legal to buy a pornographic film in which two adults have had physical sexual relations in a film studio ... however, it would become illegal to watch someone, alone behind their camera, at home, caressing their feet.

Deputy Ségolène Amiot urged members to consider the issue carefully.:

After voting to water down Article 25, it now criminalizes the purchase of remote sexual services only if the buyer is aware that a performer or model is a victim of online sexual exploitation.