March 28, 2025
Here we are again, folks, watching the grand circus of government overreach unfold, this time under the gaudy banner of the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act 2023. The clowns in Westminster, with their powdered wigs and sanctimonious grins, have unleashed a fresh edict that threatens to strangle the last gasps of free speech in the digital age. And who’s caught in the crosshairs? None other than Gab, that scrappy American outpost of unfettered discourse, led by the indomitable Andrew Torba. His latest missive to the Gab community, dated March 26, 2025, is a clarion call—a howl against the encroaching darkness of censorship masquerading as “safety.”
The UK government, in its infinite wisdom, has demanded that Gab kneel before their new law, a beastly contraption that threatens fines of £18 million or 10% of global revenue for daring to let people speak their minds. Torba’s response? A resounding “no”—a refusal to pay a single penny or implement their Orwellian mandates. He’s not wrong to smell a rat. This isn’t about protecting the delicate sensibilities of the masses; it’s about control, pure and simple. As H.L. Mencken once sneered, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” The Online Safety Act is the latest hobgoblin, draped in the pious cloak of “hate speech” provisions so vague they could criminalize a stiff breeze if it rustled the wrong feathers.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Let’s peel back the curtain on this farce. The Act, enforced by the officious busybodies at Ofcom (The Office of Communications), compels platforms to scrub “illegal” content—think child exploitation or terrorism—and limit exposure to “legal but harmful” material, a category so nebulous it could ensnare anything from a spicy meme to a contrarian rant. Fail to comply, and the fines rain down like confetti at a dictator’s parade. For Gab, a platform that’s made its name defying the censors, this is an existential threat. Torba’s letter lays it bare: “This is not about ensuring online ‘safety’ as they claim; it is a thinly veiled attempt to exert absolute control over online expression.” He’s right. The UK’s not content with policing its own damp little island—they’re reaching across the Atlantic, flexing their regulatory biceps at American companies, all under the guise of protecting the public from itself.
Bumbling arrogance
Mencken would’ve had a field day with this. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule,” he wrote, and the Online Safety Act reeks of that false piety. The British authorities, in their bumbling arrogance, even botched the timing of their ultimatum—demanding a response by March 16 to a notice sent ten days later on March 26. It’s a comedy of incompetence, but the stakes are deadly serious. If Gab falls, Torba warns, “every other American tech company is next.” He’s calling for President Trump to slap tariffs on the UK until they choke on their own hubris—a deliciously Menckenian twist, turning the screws of commerce against the sanctimonious.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule
This isn’t Gab’s first rodeo. Back in 2018, they were kicked off hosting providers and payment processors for refusing to play ball with the “hate speech” police. They survived then, and Torba’s resolve is steelier now. But the broader assault is chilling. Other U.S. platforms face the same UK strong-arming, yet Gab’s the one shouting from the rooftops. Why? Because they’ve built a fortress for free speech, a place where the unwashed masses can sling their opinions without fear of the nanny state’s lash. The Act’s extraterritorial reach—claiming jurisdiction over any platform accessible to UK users—smacks of imperial overstretch, a relic of a bygone empire now reduced to policing pixels.
The “hate speech” bogeyman
The implications are grim. If platforms like Gab buckle, the digital landscape will morph into a sterile wasteland of government-approved platitudes. Torba’s plea to his community is both a battle cry and a lifeline: “This is your platform, your community, and your voice that is under threat.” He’s rallying the troops—donations to fund legal defenses, tech fortifications, and the sheer will to outlast the censors. For UK users, he’s a knight in digital armor, vowing not to abandon them to the encroaching surveillance state. For the rest of us, it’s a warning: an attack on free speech anywhere is a dagger aimed at free speech everywhere.
Mencken would’ve seen through the Act’s flimsy veneer in a heartbeat. It’s not about safety—it’s about power, about silencing the rabble who dare to question the anointed. The “hate speech” bogeyman is just the latest imaginary terror to justify the whip. Gab’s stand is a rare glimmer of defiance in a world too eager to trade liberty for the illusion of security. Whether they win or lose, they’ve exposed the game. The question is: will the rest of us wake up before the hobgoblins devour what’s left of our tongues?
