The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, is now actively enforcing its new powers under the Online Safety Act, targeting online platforms that fail to adequately police illegal content. Companies were required to submit risk assessments on harmful content by yesterday, and from today, Ofcom will begin reviewing them, ensuring compliance and taking enforcement action where necessary.
The regulator’s primary focus is on tackling child sexual abuse material (CSAM), which is already illegal, but the move raises questions about why additional laws and regulatory oversight were deemed necessary. Some speculate that the UK police force’s inconsistent approach to online enforcement led Parliament to delegate the responsibility to Ofcom.
Suzanne Cater, Ofcom’s Enforcement Director, emphasized that platforms must act swiftly to comply with their legal duties or face significant consequences. She stated that Ofcom’s enforcement measures will ensure that sites and apps take appropriate steps to prevent CSAM from being shared.
A key concern, however, is Ofcom’s use of the term “illegal harms” instead of “illegal content.” This terminology echoes previous drafts of the legislation that sought to regulate “legal but harmful” content, a concept widely criticized for its potential to grant regulators subjective censorship powers. While the final law removed explicit references to “legal but harmful” content, the persistent use of the term “harms” has led to speculation that it could still be used to justify broader censorship in the future.
Ofcom’s guidance documents define “illegal content” as material that constitutes a “relevant offence,” but the threshold for determining such content remains ambiguous. While major crimes like terrorism and fraud are clearly outlined, the inclusion of offenses related to “stirring up hatred” and non-priority offences leaves room for interpretation.
Critics argue that the Online Safety Act could serve as a gateway to greater state control over digital content, using universally condemned crimes as justification for expanded regulatory reach. While efforts to curb online criminal activity are welcome, concerns remain about the law’s potential to pave the way for broader and more subjective censorship.
