The Online Safety Bill is Not About Protecting Children

98% of the Online Safety Bill doesn't even mention children but the government are hoping the public won't look past the headline.

  Thought Crime Britain

Behind the smokescreen of child protection lies the most sweeping assault on free speech in British history has just become law.

When the UK Government’s long-anticipated Online Safety Bill quietly came into force, the public was told it was a landmark step to protect children from harmful online content—self-harm videos, pornography, cyberbullying. But beneath that comforting headline lies a far more sinister reality. The vast majority of the bill has nothing to do with children at all. Instead, it introduces a sweeping censorship regime, unlike anything seen in Britain’s democratic history.

This is no exaggeration. It’s not hyperbole either.  The bill, in effect, creates a China-style internet control system—one that defines, regulates, and punishes speech based not on harm to children, but on whether the government approves of it.

It’s a textbook case of a legislative Trojan Horse. First, stir up a moral panic—children in danger, exposed to harmful content. Then respond with a bill supposedly designed to “protect” them. Bury the real power-grabs deep within it, hidden behind euphemistic legalese. Rely on the media and public to skim past the details. And just like that, free speech is criminalised—without a single shot fired.

At the heart of this new legislation is Clause 179, a chilling piece of legal machinery that criminalises the sending of messages the government considers false, harmful, or misleading—even if the sender believes them to be true.

To quote the law directly:

“A person commits an offence if... the message conveys information that the person knows to be false... intended to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience... and the person has no reasonable excuse.”

At first glance, it may seem narrow.  But the definition of “sending a message” is so broad it encompasses every tweet, Facebook comment, WhatsApp message, or blog post. Even sharing or reposting content can qualify. The bar for “psychological harm”? Vague, subjective, and entirely open to interpretation. And what constitutes “false” or “misleading”? That, too, is now in the hands of government-aligned regulators.

The bill doesn’t stop there. It empowers Ofcom—Britain’s media watchdog—to demand content takedowns, enforce compliance through fines, and ultimately, to control what narratives are allowed to circulate online. Forget just “hate speech”—now, even expressing a view that contradicts official policy, challenges government statistics, or questions state narratives could be punished.

This is not about protecting the vulnerable. It’s about removing the vocal.

Only twelve hours after the bill became law, it was already bearing fruit. Reports critical of migrant hotel activity were swiftly removed from social media. So too was the politically inconvenient documentary Agenda. Neither contained child abuse content. Neither encouraged self-harm. But both had one thing in common: they challenged official narratives. And that, under the new regime, is enough to trigger censorship.

Britain, long hailed as a cradle of democracy and free expression, has now outlawed dissent through the backdoor. For the average person, the shift will go unnoticed—unless they dare to speak out. But for independent journalists, whistleblowers, political dissidents, or ordinary citizens who question the status quo, the message is clear: shut up, or face consequences.

What’s most terrifying is the quietness of it all. There were no protests, no televised debates, no national outcry. The British public—distracted, misinformed, or simply trusting—let it happen. The loss of liberty wasn’t televised. It was hidden in parliamentary paperwork.

The Online Safety Bill may have been sold as a shield. But in practice, it functions far more like a gag. One that tightens a little more with every unapproved thought, every banned video, every silenced voice.

This isn't safety. It’s suppression.  And the real danger? No one noticed.

Related:

Speech Police Arrest 30 People a Day for 'Offensive' Social Media Posts