UK and EU Online Safety Laws Spark Free Speech Totalitarianism Concerns

New legislation in the United Kingdom and the European Union is drawing significant criticism for potentially eroding free speech and creating a "slippery slope" towards state control over online discourse. Concerns center on the broad scope and enforcement mechanisms of the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) and the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), with critics warning of a future where speech is increasingly regulated based on who is in power.

Prominent entrepreneur @levelsio voiced alarm on social media, stating, > "If you don't protect free speech aggressively, you end up in a slippery slope of picking and choosing what's allowed to say or not which can change depending on who's in power. And that's exactly what's happening in the UK and parts of Europe now." He concluded with a stark warning: > "Unless you fix this fast, there's no real other direction this goes other than you end up in a totalitarian state."

The UK's Online Safety Act, which came into full force in 2025, has faced heavy scrutiny. Critics point to the new "false communication offence" under Section 179(1), which criminalizes sending messages known to be false with intent to cause "non-trivial psychological or physical harm." Tech companies, including X (formerly Twitter), have argued that the OSA risks "seriously infringing" free speech, with Elon Musk calling its purpose "suppression of the people."

Further concerns about the OSA include provisions for client-side scanning of encrypted messages, aimed at filtering for child sexual abuse material, and the broad powers granted to the regulator Ofcom. Opponents argue that these measures could lead to a chilling effect on public debate and grant the government extensive powers to regulate speech without sufficient judicial oversight. The US Department of State's Human Rights Practices report for 2024 also criticized the OSA as a "hazard to the freedom of the press."

Similarly, the EU's Digital Services Act, enacted in 2022, is under fire for its impact on freedom of expression. The DSA mandates that very large online platforms remove or restrict access to "illegal content" and mitigate "systemic risks" from "harmful" material like misinformation and disinformation. Critics, including US Vice President J.D. Vance, have labeled these policies as "authoritarian censorship," arguing that the vague definitions of "hate speech" and "harmful content" could lead to over-compliance and the suppression of legitimate discourse.

The DSA's extraterritorial reach is also a major point of contention, as platforms may opt for global content removal to avoid hefty fines, effectively imposing European speech standards worldwide. This "de facto Brussels Effect" could impact users outside the EU, including in the United States, by restricting content permissible under their own national laws. Experts warn that empowering private companies to act as arbiters of truth poses a significant threat to democratic principles and the free exchange of ideas.