Architect of the UK Online Safety Act Calls For Its Complete Repeal – Preston Byrne

Free Speech

Architect of the UK Online Safety Act Calls For Its Complete Repeal

May 19, 2026

We learn today that Rt Hon Nadine Dorries, former MP, Culture Secretary, champion of the Online Safety Bill, and the Member of Parliament who formally introduced the law in the House of Commons, has today called for the now-enacted Online Safety Act to be repealed "in its entirety."

Nadine Dorries, one of the principal architects of the UK’s Online Safety Act, has called for the law to be “repealed in its entirety.” https://t.co/aLPkiAtBhl<br>— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) May 19, 2026

This is an absolutely titanic political development.

The change in posture comes on the heels of TikTok’s OSA program being used to censor Zia Yusuf, the Reform Party’s Shadow Home Secretary, in a party political announcement on immigration policy. I was asked to speak about this on GB News on Sunday night.

'What's happened is the UK has some insane speech laws.'

Free Speech Lawyer Preston Byrne reacts to Reform UK's Zia Yusuf accusing Labour of silencing their opponents after his post on immigration was removed from TikTok under the Online Safety Act. pic.twitter.com/GAGMQ52vZ0<br>— GB News (@GBNEWS) May 18, 2026

Ms. Dorries went on GB News today to explain the reasons for her reversal. Chiefly, there is widening recognition across British society that the OSA is being used to censor the legitimate political speech of adults. Dorries suggests that the OSA should be repealed and replaced with a Bill that is focused on the protection of children, instead:

A bill that would actually make kids safer in the UK would harmonize UK and US law on political speech so the two countries can agree on data sharing for law enforcement.

I wrote about this in 2019:https://t.co/PHKwoh5v9d https://t.co/0OAqsjoafB<br>— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) May 19, 2026

As it happens, such a bill exists – the UK Freedom of Speech Bill that my colleagues and I proposed over at the Adam Smith Institute last month.

I don’t have a ton of time to get into the details today, so I will have to be brief. This is how the Freedom of Speech Bill can function as the replacement to the UK OSA Regime:

Clause 20 of the Bill replicates the mandatory reporting structures in the current Online Safety Act and (in the U.S.) 18 U.S.C. § 2258A.

By harmonizing to U.S. free speech standards, the UK will make it considerably easier, as a political matter, enter into data sharing and cross-border cooperation agreements, like CLOUD Act agreements, with the United States.

The CLOUD Act agreement between the U.S. and the UK is currently limited to so-called "serious crimes" – crimes that are punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. From the U.S. side, requests that infringe on U.S. free speech principles are not permitted; from the UK side, requests that could result in the death penalty are not permitted. Cooperation could be expanded.

Given the current structure of English law, it is difficult for the Americans to know whether English requests infringe U.S. speech principles (and, given the plain language of English law, they often will); given the political environment in the United States, it is unlikely U.S. politicians will be inclined to grant UK law enforcement more expansive access to data held on American servers.

If British police know, up front, that the British legal regime is harmonized to the First Amendment (and therefore their CLOUD Act requests won’t violate the First Amendment), you have just removed a huge obstacle to British police getting comfortable sending those requests.

And the Freedom of Speech Bill is designed to do exactly that. If enacted, it would substantially harmonize the UK’s online communications regime with the United States’ online communications regime, by both repealing inconsistent legislation and replacing it with consistent, speech-protective legislation.

See Schedules 1 and 2 of the proposed Bill which, with respect to speech made on the Internet, replace the provisions of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Sections 179 and 181 of the Online Safety Act 2023, and much of the Public Order Act 1986.

If British police know the tool will work, they’ll use it. That’s not the case today with a lot of online crime which is prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and the Online Safety Act 2023 itself – none of which would survive constitutional scrutiny in the United States.

Cooperation of this type means that that UK-origin law enforcement requests will get faster responses from U.S. companies. Faster data production means faster arrests. Faster arrests means fewer bad guys on the Internet.

Ofcom is a censorship agency, not a law enforcement agency. There’s a big difference between those functions.

Compare that to...