Ofcom urged to clarify if Palestine Action content should still be removed online
Human rights organizations and academics are urging Ofcom to clarify the status of Palestine Action content online following a high court ruling that the group's ban was unlawful, despite the Home Secretary's appeal. While the Metropolitan Police will no longer arrest protestors supporting the group, it remains unclear if online platforms must still remove content under the Online Safety Act's terrorism provisions.

Briefing Summary
AI-generatedHuman rights organizations and academics are urging Ofcom to clarify the status of Palestine Action content online following a high court ruling that the group's ban was unlawful, despite the Home Secretary's appeal. While the Metropolitan Police will no longer arrest protestors supporting the group, it remains unclear if online platforms must still remove content under the Online Safety Act's terrorism provisions. Organizations including Amnesty International and Open Rights Group have sent a letter to Ofcom requesting guidance on content removal expectations, implementation of new duties, and potential content restoration if the government loses its appeal. They express concern that vague terrorism definitions and legal duties risk wrongly removing content and censoring public debate about Palestine, especially with upcoming requirements for proactive scanning and algorithm suppression. The groups are asking Ofcom to clarify the situation pending the appeal, similar to the Met's stance.
Article analysis
Model · rule-basedKey claims
5 extractedJudges decided that the proscription order banning Palestine Action would remain in place pending appeal.
The Metropolitan police will no longer arrest people at protests who express support for Palestine Action.
Human rights organisations have called on Ofcom to clarify the impact of the high court ruling on Palestine Action content removal.
The UK’s vague definition of terrorism and legal duties under the Online Safety Act already risk content being wrongly defined as illegal.
The high court ruling demonstrates how easily counter-terror powers can be used to silence debate.