The UK government’s Online Safety Bill, now barreling toward implementation, has gone from misguided to outright Orwellian. What began as a supposed effort to protect children online has mutated into a bloated, authoritarian monstrosity threatening free speech, online anonymity, and political dissent. But perhaps even more disturbing than the bill itself is the Labour Party’s unhinged response to anyone who dares question it.
Critics, including Nigel Farage, have raised alarm bells about the bill’s far-reaching consequences. It’s not just about restricting harmful content for minors, it’s about mass censorship, ending online anonymity, and empowering the government to police speech. But rather than engage in good-faith debate, Labour MPs have taken the low road. Very low.
In a now-infamous appearance on Sky News, Labour MP Peter Kyle went off the rails, accusing Farage of being on the “side of extreme pornographers” and even likening his stance to siding with notorious child predator Jimmy Savile. Yes, really.
When pressed for clarification, Kyle doubled down. According to him, if you oppose the Online Safety Bill, you’re essentially enabling predators to contact children via social media. By this logic, Farage and anyone else critical of the bill are enemies of child safety, or worse.
This isn’t just a bad faith argument, it’s a grotesque smear. To conflate skepticism about internet surveillance with support for child abuse is not only absurd, it’s dangerous. It’s political gaslighting at its worst. The accusation that Farage, or anyone else, is “on the side of Jimmy Savile” for opposing overreaching censorship is not just defamatory, it’s unhinged.
But what makes this narrative even more infuriating is Labour’s own track record on protecting children. Let’s not forget that this is the same party that actively voted against a national inquiry into grooming gangs, a scandal that has scarred communities and ruined countless lives. And now they have the audacity to posture as moral guardians?
If we’re pointing fingers at those who’ve enabled predators, perhaps Labour should start by looking in the mirror.
Meanwhile, the bill’s actual provisions raise deeply troubling questions. It doesn’t stop at age verification for adult content, it extends to content deemed politically unacceptable. “Racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses,” “illegal immigration,” and other “offensive” topics are explicitly included. The government claims it’s about safety, but what they’re pushing is speech control under the guise of child protection.
And now, there’s talk of banning VPNs, yes, the very cybersecurity tools that individuals, businesses, and governments themselves use to protect data and privacy. Reports have already emerged of UK ISPs blocking access to VPN websites, with the government mulling further restrictions.
Let’s be clear: this is not just regulatory overreach, it’s an attack on digital privacy and freedom of expression.
The consequences of this bill aren’t confined to the UK either. American attorneys are reportedly preparing to sue Ofcom, arguing that the bill’s reach into global platforms infringes on the rights of international users. If enacted and enforced, the Online Safety Bill could set a dangerous precedent worldwide.
The Labour Party’s approach to defending this legislation is not just morally bankrupt, it’s politically suicidal. Instead of persuading voters with sound arguments, they’ve opted to weaponize child safety rhetoric and smear dissenters with baseless accusations.
It’s not working. Public backlash is growing, VPN sales are spiking, and fact-checkers are calling out Labour’s lies in real time. The more they insist that opposing censorship equals supporting predators, the more they expose their own desperation, and their own authoritarian instincts.
Protecting children online is a worthy goal. But using children as a human shield for mass censorship is a cowardly and dishonest tactic. The Online Safety Bill should be repealed, not rebranded. And if Labour continues down this road, they may find themselves on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of the next election.
