Your Daily Broadsheet!

The US right leaning forum website GAB has blocked internet users located in Britain. UK users can now only see a landing page explaining that UK internet censorship laws are unacceptable to the free speech loving forum. The website explains its actions as follows:

ATTENTION: UK Visitor Detected

The following notice applies specifically to users accessing from the United Kingdom.

Access Restricted by Provider

After receiving yet another demand from the UK's speech police, Ofcom, Gab has made the decision to block the entire United Kingdom from accessing our website.

This latest email from Ofcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads: compelled censorship and British citizens thrown in jail for hate speech. We refuse to comply with this tyranny.

Gab is an American company with zero presence in the UK. Ofcom's demands have no legal force here. To enforce anything in the United States, they'd need to go through a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letters rogatory. No U.S. court is going to enforce a foreign censorship regime. The First Amendment forbids it.

Ofcom will likely try to make an example of us anyway. That's because the UK's Online Safety Act isn't about protecting children. It's about suppressing dissent.

They're welcome to try. The idea that a British regulator can pressure a U.S. company that's IP-blocking the entire UK is as farcical as it is futile. If anything, it proves our point: censorship doesn't work. It only reveals the truth about the censors.

We proudly join platforms like Bitchute in boycotting the United Kingdom. American companies should follow suit. The power of the UK's parliament ends where the First Amendment begins.

The only way to vote against the tyranny of the UK's present regime is to walk away from it, refuse to comply, and take refuge under the impervious shelter of the First Amendment.

The UK's rulers want their people kept in the dark. Let them see how long the public tolerates it as their Internet vanishes, one website at a time.

 

Update: Ofcom responds

23rd April 2025. See article from ofcom.org.uk

The Online Safety Act introduces new rules for providers of online user-to-user, search and pornography services, to help keep people in the UK safe from content which is illegal in the UK, and to protect children from the most harmful content such as pornography, suicide and self-harm material.

Wherever in the world a service is based, if it has links to the UK, it now has duties to protect UK users. This includes having a significant number of UK users, or that the UK is a target market. These rules will also apply to services that are capable of being used by individuals in the UK and which pose a material risk of significant harm to them.

The Act only requires that services take action to protect users based in the UK -- it does not require them to take action in relation to users based anywhere else in the world.

Ofcom believes its flexible approach to risk assessment and mitigation allows all services to take appropriate and proportionate steps to protect UK users from illegal content. Some services might seek to prevent users in the UK from accessing their sites or parts of their sites, instead of complying with the Act's requirements to protect UK users. That is their choice.

If a service restricts UK users' access, that action would need to be effective in order for the service to fall out of scope of the Act. The key test remains whether the service has links to the UK. This will depend on the specific circumstances (including whether it is still targeting UK users, for example, by promoting ways of evading access restrictions). Ofcom would assess whether a service is in scope on a case-by-case basis and, where the Act applies, would consider the service's compliance with the law and, where necessary, use our investigation and enforcement powers.

We recognise the breadth and complexity of the online safety rules and that there is a diverse range of services in scope.

New regulation can create uncertainty and navigating the requirements can be challenging. Ofcom is committed to working with providers to help them comply with the Online Safety Act and protect their users. We have therefore developed a range of tools and resources to make it easier for them to understand -- and comply with -- their obligations. We also recently published a guide to help small services navigate the Online Safety Act.

US state department officials have challenged Britain's internet censor over the impact on freedom of expression created by new online censorship laws, the Guardian understands.

A group of officials from the state department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) recently met Ofcom in London. It is understood that they raised the issue of the new online safety act and how it risked infringing free speech.

The state department body later said the meeting was part of its initiative to affirm the US commitment to defending freedom of expression, both in Europe and around the world. During the meeting, Ofcom officials claimed the new rules were only in place to deal with explicitly illegal content and material that could be harmful to children.

A state department spokesperson said: As Vice-President Vance has said, we are concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.

Details of the meeting emerged after Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, denied that concerns over free speech had featured in tariff negotiations with the US.

In February, the US vice-president, JD Vance, complained of infringements on free speech in the UK. Elon Musk, one of Trump's closest allies, repeatedly claimed that some prison sentences handed down to people who incited the riots on X were a breach of free speech.

Free speech advocates say that the UK censorship law is going to bring about a culture of 'if in doubt, cut it out' as platforms seek to avoid being subject to Ofcom's enforcement powers.

The Government's controversial 'disinformation' team is developing a secretive AI programme to trawl through social media looking for concerning posts it deems problematic.

Records show the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) recently awarded a £2.3 million contract to Faculty AI to build monitoring software which can search for foreign interference, detect deepfakes and analyse social media narratives.

DSIT claimed the new AI tool, called the Counter 'Disinformation' Data Platform (CDDP), is for the moment looking solely for posts which pose a threat to national security and public safety risk.

Heavily redacted documents obtained by Big Brother Watch through Freedom of Information requests show that the Government is reserving the right to also use the platform for other issues. An executive summary for the project states: While the CDDP has a current national security focus the tool has the ability to be pivoted to focus on any priority area.

The BBC has pulled a documentary which follows the life of a boy in war-torn Gaza after seemingly coming under pressure from Israeli supporters.

Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone which was on the BBC's iPlayer streaming service centres on the struggles of 13-year-old Abdullah, living under Israel's brutal offensive in the Palestinian territory.

Following pressure, it was taken down on Friday, a day after British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said she would discuss the issue with the BBC's director general and chairman. The BBC says that a number of British television figures also had sent letters criticising it and called for an investigation.

The documentary was removed after the BBC with the explanation that the organisation discovered that the boy's father, Dr Ayman Alyazouri, has worked as a deputy agriculture minister in the Gaza government. Following the ban, the BBC issued a statement saying:

The film remains a powerful child's eye view of the devastating consequences of the war in Gaza which we believe is an invaluable testament to their experiences, and we must meet our commitment to transparency.

Despite it being pulled from iPlayer, many online users have shared the one-hour documentary on social media.