Glossary Term Selection
Key Facts
Assignments
Useful Websites
Censorship, free speech, cancel culture and fake news are all linked by one important question: who decides what we are allowed to say, read, watch or share? This question is especially relevant for teenagers today, as the UK government has announced plans to ban social media for under-16s. Supporters argue that this could protect young people from harmful content, misinformation and online pressure. Critics may question whether banning access is the best solution, or whether it limits young people’s freedom online. Censorship can be protective, but it can also be controversial, making it important to understand both sides.
Every day, we are exposed to some form of censorship, whether we realise it or not. This might include age ratings on films, blocked websites at school, edited news reports, or rules about what can be posted online. But is censorship helpful, harmful, or a bit of both?
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
– US Constitution, First Amendment
Imagine seeing a dramatic video online with a headline that makes you stop scrolling. It might claim that something shocking has happened, show an emotional image, or warn people to share it quickly. Today, information can spread across the world in minutes, especially through social media. This can be useful, but it can also make it harder to know what is true. How can we tell the difference between truth, lies, mistakes, and manipulation?
News can help shape our views, opinions, and attitudes, so it is important to be able to trust what you read, and to make your own judgements about events and stories covered in the media.
Misinformation, sometimes known as ‘fake news’, occurs when someone creates a false story or account of an event, about a person or social group.
This week parliament will attempt to conclude legislation allowing the government to ban young people from social media. It’s taken weeks of ‘ping-pong’ to land on the specific form that these restrictions will take, and there has been no shortage of ideas. Tory peer Lord Nash’s proposals would introduce a blanket ban on all social media for under-16s, while the government is angling to implement restrictions on features and even introduce online curfews.
In November 2025, a school library in Greater Manchester underwent a purge. Inspired by the headteacher’s dislike of one particular title, books were pulled off the shelves, in a case unlike any previously seen in the UK. Within weeks, more than 130 books had been targeted – nearly 200 if each issue of the numerous graphic novels is counted. The books included a graphic novel of George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four, young adult books like Dean Atta’s Black Flamingo and Alice Oseman’s chart-topping Heartstopper graphic novel series. Black Flamingo has since been reinstated, but the fate of many books on the list is unclear.
Lego, Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto – three games being used by the US and Iran in a propaganda war while a very real and deadly conflict rages.
Hundreds of lives have been lost in the conflict since the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran last month, and there is still no end in sight.
To ban (social media) or not to ban – that is the question. The fact that many experts and children’s organisations think it’s the wrong question is no longer the point. Perhaps the fact that the House of Lords has resoundingly voted to ban children under 16 from social media platforms has sent a warning shot to the Government that its plans are insufficient, in the rhetoric of the campaigners, to ‘give them their childhood back.’
The UK has now endured more then a decade of debate and deliberation on the topic of internet regulation. For proponents of new online ‘safety’ laws, this has been as painful as it has for those deeply concerned about the potential impact on civil liberties. What began with a speech by David Cameron in 2013 on cleansing the internet of ‘disgusting material’ online, led to an ‘Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper’ in 2017, which developed into an ‘Online Harms White Paper’ in 2019, a draft Online Safety Bill in 2021 and then a full and final Online Safety Bill in 2022. After being carried through multiple Parliamentary sessions and at least one major revision, the Online Safety Act achieved Royal Assent in October, 2023.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a dreadful reminder of the low regard in which free speech is now held, even in America. That someone should murder him just because they disagreed with his opinions is profoundly disturbing, as was the gleeful response by swathes of Left-wing activists. Don’t they realise that if violence is considered a legitimate response to a point of view you disapprove of, they’ll be next?
Language is power, and the ultimate expression of this power is to control what can and cannot be said. From the beginning of organised society, those in power have sought to control the words spoken by their citizens and subjects. Whether this was done for moral, political, religious, or some other purpose, censorship has played a major role in shaping the course of civilisation and history. From ancient scrolls to modern-day social media, control over words and narratives plays a pivotal part in society.
This law will mean that many universities will have to change the way they approach free speech.
For the first time since records began, the United Kingdom is no longer classified as an ‘Open’ country in a leading global ranking of freedom of expression. In its latest Global Expression Report, the free speech advocacy organisation Article 19 downgraded the UK after its rating for core expressive freedoms fell below the threshold that separates the world’s most liberal societies from the rest.
In brief
Cancel culture consists in boycotting a public figure, whose words or actions are considered problematic.
Have you ever felt like you’re surrounded by misinformation while reading a website or scrolling on social media? Knowing what information to trust is increasingly difficult on social media, where false claims frequently are disguised as facts. Learn how to check information online, create and consume content responsibly, and have productive discussions with people who believe misinformation.
Within hours of the fatal stabbing of three young people in Southport on 29 July, rumours were swirling around social media that the assailant was an undocumented Muslim immigrant. By 3pm the next day, his alleged name, ‘al-Shakati’, had been mentioned on the platform X (formerly Twitter) more than 30,000 times.
We all had books that we adored as kids. Whether it was marvelling at how a bathtub could possibly be attached to a broomstick in Julia Donaldson’s Room on the Broom, or enduring the Biff, Chip and Kipper series that many of us were forced to read in primary school, some of our favourite characters and fondest childhood memories have originated from reading.
‘Is this a book you wish your wife or your servants to read?’ asked prosecutor Mervyn Griffith-Jones QC in 1960. Penguin Books were being tried under the Obscenity Act, for publishing an uncensored version of DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Griffith-Jones’s words quickly backfired, prompting laughter from the jury and an acquittal for Penguin, who sold over three million copies of the book in the following months.
Jacqueline Wilson has discussed the increasing censorship of children’s books, calling the situation ‘a huge worry’.
The author of books from The Story of Tracy Beaker to Girls in Love talked about censorship in an interview while promoting her new novel The Best Sleepover in the World.
