UK Internet Censorship

The anti porn campaigner and peer Gabby Bertin asked the government about the implementation schedule of the ban on possession and publication of porn featuring strangulation and suffocation.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 includes a clause that amends the extreme porn provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It adds the offence:

(67A) Possession or publication of pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if—

(a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63,

(b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and

(c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.

(2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) .

(3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means.

Gerard Lemos answered for the government:

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 contains a wide range of measures to strengthen the criminal law. The Government is working with law enforcement and other partners and will bring the remaining provisions into force as quickly as practicable.

We are progressing work to bring these offences into force this autumn, balancing speed with operational considerations and wider system impacts. We will clearly communicate to the public when these measures are commenced.

According to XBiz:

Ofcom, which enforces the Online Safety Act, has been awaiting guidance from the government on exactly how the new provision is to be implemented. It remains unclear what specific criteria might be used for assessing whether an image or video violates the law, whether Ofcom will be the sole investigator/enforcer of the law or if other agencies might be involved, and whether there will be an official procedure or series of steps for investigations and enforcement actions, as has been the case with enforcement of OSA age assurance rules.

It will be interesting to see the detailed censorship rules. Anything close to merely squeezing the throat for a short time or gagging in blowjobs would mean that tens of thousands of worldwide porn videos would qualify as illegal and every porn tube site in the world would be illegal. I don't see much chance of Pornhub working through all its porn videos censoring out offending scenes.

Ofcom has commenced investigations into two pornographic services - Itai Tech Ltd and Score Internet Group LLC - under our age assurance enforcement programme.

Under the Online Safety Act, online services must ensure children cannot access pornographic content on their sites. In January, we wrote to online services that display or publish their own pornographic content to explain that the requirements for them to have highly effective age checks in place to protect children had come into force. We requested details of services' plans for complying, along with an implementation timeline and a named point of contact.

Encouragingly, many services confirmed that they are implementing, or have plans to implement, age assurance on around 1,300 sites. A small number of services chose to block UK users from accessing their sites, rather than putting age checks in place.

Certain services failed to respond to our request and have not taken any steps to implement highly effective age assurance to protect children from pornography.

We are today opening investigations into Itai Tech Ltd - a service which runs the nudification site Undress.cc - and Score Internet Group LLC, which runs the site Scoreland.com. Both sites appear to have no highly effective age assurance in place and are potentially in breach of the Online Safety Act and their duties to protect children from pornography. Next steps

We will provide an update on both investigations on our website in due course, along with details of any further investigations launched under this enforcement programme

 

Update: Low Scores

2nd July 2025. See article from ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom has closed its investigation of scoreland.com after the website introduced age/ID verification. The website now requires that UK users subscribe using a credit card (no debit cards) before content can be viewed. Visitors from other countries can see teaser images and can pay via several other options.

Ofcom writes:

In response to our investigation, Score Internet Group LLC have taken steps to implement highly effective age assurance to ensure compliance with their duties under Part 5 of the OSA.

As such, Ofcom is satisfied that the conduct that led to the opening of the investigation has ceased and we do not consider it appropriate to continue our investigation. We have therefore closed it without making any findings as to Score Internet's compliance with its duties, either currently or prior to its confirmation that it had taken steps to comply with the OSA.

Motherless.com is a well known porn tube site that seems to feature a more diverse selection of videos than most with a little more user/amateur content, than is the norm. The website is still operating and continues to allow open access.

Ofcom writes of its actions:

Ofcom has launched two investigations into whether Kick Online Entertainment S.A has failed to comply with its duties under the UK's Online Safety Act. Duties under the Act

Providers of services in scope of the Act are required to assess the risk of people in the UK encountering illegal content on their service, and take appropriate steps to protect them from it.

Providers are also required to respond to all statutory information requests from Ofcom in an accurate, complete and timely way.

On 3 March 2025, we opened an enforcement programme to monitor whether providers are complying with their duties under the Act to carry out an illegal content risk assessment and keep appropriate records of their assessments. As part of this programme, we issued an information request to Kick Online Entertainment S.A, which is responsible for providing the pornography website Motherless.com. We required it to submit the record of its illegal content risk assessment to us so we could consider whether it is compliant with its duties.

Having received no response to our request, we have today launched investigations into whether this provider has failed in its duties to complete and keep a record of  a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment and respond to a statutory information request.

We have received complaints about the potential for illegal content and activity on this site, including child sexual abuse material and extreme pornography. In light of this, we will also be considering whether the provider has put appropriate safety measures in place to protect its UK users from illegal content and activity and may launch an additional investigation into its compliance with this duty if appropriate

We will now gather and analyse evidence to determine whether a contravention has occurred. If our assessment indicates a compliance failure, we will issue a provisional notice of contravention to the provider, who can then make representations on our findings, before we make our final decision.

We will provide regular updates as these investigations progress.

With a theatrical flourish clamouring to the 'won't somebody think of the children' mob, Ofcom has proposed a set of censorship rules that demand strict age/ID verification for practically ever single website that allows users to post content. On top of that they are proposing the most onerous mountain of expensive red tape seen in the western world.

There are few clever slight of hands that drag most of the internet into the realm of strict age/ID verification. Ofcom argues that nearly all websites will have child users because 16 and 17 year old 'children' have more or less the same interests as adults and so there is no content that is not of interest to 'children'

And so all websites will have to offer content that is appropriate to all age children or else put in place strict age/ID verification to ensure that content is appropriate to age.

And at every stage of deciding website policy, Ofcom is demanding extensive justification of decision made and proof of data used in making decisions. The amount of risk assessments, documents, research, evidence required makes the 'health and safety' regime look like child's play.

On occasions in the consultation documents Ofcom acknowledges that this will impose a massive administrative burden, but swats away criticism by noting that is the fault of the Online Safety Act law itself, and not Ofcom's fault.

Comment: Online Safety proposals could cause new harms

See article from openrightsgroup.org

Ofcom's consultation on safeguarding children online exposes significant problems regarding the proposed implementation of age-gating measures. While aimed at protecting children from digital harms, the proposed measures introduce risks to cybersecurity, privacy and freedom of expression.

Ofcom's proposals outline the implementation of age assurance systems, including photo-ID matching, facial age estimation, and reusable digital identity services, to restrict access to popular platforms like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Google that might contain content deemed harmful to children.

Open Rights Group warns that these measures could inadvertently curtail individuals' freedom of expression while simultaneously exposing them to heightened cybersecurity risks.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, said:

Adults will be faced with a choice: either limit their freedom of expression by not accessing content, or expose themselves to increased security risks that will arise from data breaches and phishing sites.

Some overseas providers may block access to their platforms from the UK rather than comply with these stringent measures.

We are also concerned that educational and help material, especially where it relates to sexuality, gender identity, drugs and other sensitive topics may be denied to young people by moderation systems.

Risks to children will continue with these measures. Regulators need to shift their approach to one that empowers children to understand the risks they may face, especially where young people may look for content, whether it is meant to be available to them or not.

Open Rights Group underscores the necessity for privacy-friendly standards in the development and deployment of age-assurance systems mandated by the Online Safety Act. Killock notes, Current data protection laws lack the framework to pre-emptively address the specific and novel cybersecurity risks posed by these proposals.

Open Rights Group urges the government to prioritize comprehensive solutions that incorporate parental guidance and education rather than relying largely on technical measures.