Australian “Censorship to Protect Us”

U.S. OFFICIAL BLASTS UK’S ONLINE SAFETY ACT:“A DEAL BREAKER FOR AMERICAN FREE SPEECH” “The UK now has over 30 arrests for online speech a day.” U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers has ignited a diplomatic firestorm, condemning the U.K.’s Online Safety Act as “vastly overreaching” and a form of cross-border censorship disguised as child protection: “It’s not about safety. It’s about control, and it doesn’t stop at your borders.” The Act compels tech giants like Meta, Google, and X to scan private messages and delete “harmful” material or face fines up to 10% of global revenue. The Under Secretary says this directly undermines the First Amendment by forcing U.S. companies to censor lawful speech inside America to satisfy British regulators. This isn’t just about the UK. It’s about the precedent. If American tech companies bend to foreign speech laws, every authoritarian government on the planet will demand the same treatment. The EU already tried it with the Digital Services Act. Now Britain is pushing further. The Trump administration is drawing a line: American companies will not be weaponized to enforce foreign censorship regimes. “For the Children”: The Oldest Excuse for Control Australia is the one pushing this globally through its jet setting eCensor. She’s at the heart of the global putsch to censor the internet. We are the children in the eyes of those who rule the world through law and regulation. Every law they create reflects this belief—that they are the adults, enlightened and responsible, while we must be protected from corruption because we are not yet capable of making the “right” choices. Like a parent who believes they can never be wrong, they impose their will “for our own good.” They will never admit to the harm they cause, insisting instead that we are too naĂŻve or unenlightened to decide for ourselves. If we make a choice they dislike, we are told to choose again—until our answer aligns with what they want. And if we still refuse, punishment follows. https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1895140393890775353 https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1937110522538680461 This is not governance; it is control. It is the instinct of a devouring parent who cannot allow their children to grow up and make the world better. The latest example of this pattern is the proposed EU law often called “Chat Control.” It is presented, as always, “for the protection of children.” Yet its effects reach far beyond that noble aim. The proposal mandates scanning of all messages, files, and attachments—before or as they are encrypted (so-called client-side scanning) and applies even to end-to-end encrypted services, which many rights and privacy groups argue undermines both security and personal freedom. https://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003250_EN.html It allows mass, indiscriminate surveillance, including of users never suspected of wrongdoing. Some versions of the proposal also discuss age-verification and removing anonymity—measures that would require vast personal data collection and further erode privacy online. But this pattern is not new. History shows that laws introduced “for protection” have consistently expanded into systems of censorship and control. In the UK, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (link: http://legislation.gov.uk) made it a crime to publish “obscene” material—regardless of profit. Though its intent was to protect children (and the public) from exposure to obscene or indecent material, it was repeatedly used to censor art, literature, and political speech (for example, the trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover in 1960) and its expanded definition of “obscene” let the state suppress materials unrelated to child protection. https://europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-003250_EN.html https://britannica.com/event/Obscene-Publications-Act In Germany, the Jugendmedienschutz‑Staatsvertrag (JMStV) (Interstate Treaty on the Protection of Minors in the Media) came into effect in 2003 (amended in 2020) and sets out standards for protecting minors against harmful media in broadcasting and online. But its broad and vague definitions have been used to censor political satire, art, and online discussion forums deemed “harmful to minors”. https://taylorwessing.com/en/interface/2025/online-safety-update/germanys-approach-to-protecting-minors-online https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/rules-guidelines/interstate-treaty-protection-minors-media In the United States, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (1998) aimed to prevent websites from collecting data from children under 13. But in practice, it forced many platforms to collect more data from everyone, including adults (as age-verification became common). It effectively locked children out of many educational and creative online spaces (e.g., YouTube, online games) and has been used by Big Tech to justify increased data profiling under the guise of “compliance.” https://ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa In China, the Regulations on the Protection of Minors in Cyberspace (effective 1 Jan 2024) build on the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China and other regulations. Officially to protect minors from harmful content, in reality it has expanded into a broad censorship regime covering politics, religion, and dissent. https://twobirds.com/en/insights/2024/china/china-strengthens-the-protection-of-minors-in-cyberspace https://chinalawtranslate.com/en/overview-of-protections-for-minors-online/ The Pattern of Control The general pattern can be described as follows: 1. “For the children” → surveillance: Child safety is used to normalise scanning, filtering, and identity verification. o Example: EU “Chat Control”, UK Online Safety Bill. 2. Censorship creep: Definitions of “harmful to minors” expand to include political, religious, or adult content. o Example: Germany’s JMStV. 3. Data-collection justified by protection: To verify age or block minors, systems gather more personal data. o Example: COPPA, Digital Economy Act. 4. Global enforcement without due process: Platforms required to auto-remove flagged content, bypassing courts. o Example: Australia’s Online Safety Act. 5. Long-term normalisation: Emergency or moral laws become permanent infrastructure. o Example: U.S. Patriot Act after “protecting from predators” expansions. So, will the EU follow the same path as those before—claiming to protect the children while treating the entire population as children in need of control? History suggests it will. There’s a reason the American Constitution enshrined the First Amendment—because without freedom of speech, liberty cannot survive. Sadly, even that protection is under constant attack. https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1900462688897061236 https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1892139816814326171 For those who live in nations without such guarantees, the question is stark: Who will protect us from those who claim to protect us? https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1883787739436400970 https://x.com/TheUn_important/status/1851146402140750147 I’m seriously considering attending this privacy forum — maybe there, among others who still value freedom and privacy, I’ll find the answers we need. https://x.com/fluffypony/status/1980906775483199712