Censor Watch

From 6 November 2026, it will be a criminal offence in England and Wales to possess or publish pornographic images that explicitly and realistically depict:

• strangulation or suffocation

• penetrative sexual activity between people who a reasonable person would think are related, or pretending to be related, in a certain way. This includes depictions of close familial relatives such as father and daughter or brother and sister, and certain step and foster relationships where one person is, or is pretending to be, under 18

• sexual activity between at least 2 people where a reasonable person would think at least one person is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The offences only capture pornography that shows people which appear, to a reasonable person, to be real.

The maximum penalty for possession is:

• 2 years' imprisonment for pornography that depicts strangulation or suffocation, or penetrative sexual activity between certain relatives;

• 3 years' imprisonment for pornography depicting sexual activity involving a person who is, or is pretending to be, under 16

The maximum penalty for publication for all offences is 5 years' imprisonment.

There are defences available for these offences. For example, a person may have a defence to the possession and publication offences if they had not seen the image before and did not know, or have cause to suspect, that it was an image covered by the offences.

There is also a defence where the person who possesses or publishes the image directly participated in the act shown in the image and other criteria are met. For the possession offences, there is also a defence where a person was sent the image without asking for it (either themselves, or through a third party) and did not keep it for an unreasonable length of time.

The offences also attract a defence of legitimate reason for possessing or publishing the image.

What we mean by possession and publication

The term possess is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether a person possesses an image will be a question of fact for the court in each case. However, we consider that possessing an image will generally mean having custody or control of it. This could include where an image is stored on a device, retained in a personal account or cloud, saved in files, or otherwise kept physically or virtually.

Publish is defined in the offences to include giving or making an image available to another person by any means. This could include uploading, posting, sending, sharing or distributing an image. What we mean by strangulation and suffocation

The term strangulation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts strangulation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that strangulation generally means one person applying pressure to another person's neck.

The term suffocation is not defined in the legislation and will be given its ordinary meaning. Whether an image depicts suffocation will be a question of fact for the court in each case. We consider that suffocation will generally mean depriving a person of air in a way that affects their ability to breathe. Unlike strangulation, this does not require pressure to the neck. It could, for example, involve covering someone's mouth and nose or compressing their chest.

What you need to do before 6 November 2026

Possession is a continuing act. If you already possess an image covered by these offences, you will need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before 6 November 2026 to avoid committing an offence once the offences come into force.

Publication can also be a continuing act. If you have uploaded, posted or otherwise made an image covered by these offences available whether online or offline, you will need to remove it and stop making it available to others before 6 November 2026.

If you possess or are continuing to publish an image covered by these offences, you must stop doing so before they come into force. This means if you possess it, you need to permanently delete it or otherwise get rid of it before commencement. If you are continuing to publish it (whether online or offline), you need to remove it and stop publication before commencement.

The government has commissioned British Board of Film Censorship to test the feasibility of censoring online pornography for violent and abusive content.

The pilot by the BBFC will inform ministerial decisions on the most effective way to censor world wide websites potentially resulting in a formal online censor.

A government commissioned review by anti porn peer Gabby Bertin has resulted in new criminal offences for the publication and possession of certain types of online pornography, including strangulation, incest, step-incest and adults role-playing as children.

The laws will come into force by the 6th November. However Baroness Bertin said for the legislation to be effective there also needed to be more proactive regulation, including spot checking and auditing.

Bertin's review had suggested the BBFC audit websites, given its experience monitoring offline pornography for 40 years. They have previously raised concerns about the disparity between online and offline regulation and said they stand ready to expand their remit.

They were awarded a three-month contract for an Audit of Internet Services pilot in July. The pilot includes generating evidence on the availability of certain online pornographic content and evaluating how it could be monitored and reported on at scale given the huge size of the market.

Such a porn censor would need funding for staff to monitor content as well as new technology. Baroness Bertin proposed a model where porn companies as well as social media companies and search engines pay for it.

Bertin suggested that users would appreciate a BBFC censored website saying:

You are then saying to users, we are tried and tested and if you come into our site you won't see illegal content.

She said as well as monitoring for illegal content, an auditor could draw up guidance to address the grey area of material that is not illegal but would be banned in the offline world. It could also do spot checks for age of performers and consent, and help bring down sites that are not behind an age gate or are showing illegal content - either through having its own statutory powers or working alongside Ofcom.

Ofcom has the power to fines sites that don't comply with new age verification requirements that came into force last year as part of the Online Safety Act, but Baroness Bertin said the system is too slow. It should also be noted that only a couple of websites have actually paid Ofcom fines.

Ali G: Who Iz I? is a 2026 UK/US comedy by Sacha Baron Cohen
Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Morgana Robinson and Stewart Rodeheaver

Hip-hop journalist Ali G returns after 20 years to make a documentary with real people. Cameras follow him for over a year as he takes classes, walks the streets, and appears on shows, often with his pregnant girlfriend.

The Daily Mail has reported on an AI assisted campaign trying to prevent Ali G: Who Iz I? from being shown at cinemas.

Ali G is returning to cinemas in October following a 20-year hiatus during which, as Ali G puts it, the world went to crap.

In the hours that following the release of the movie trailer, a most peculiar series of events played out. It involved a short-lived but apparently extremely high-profile campaign to have Ali G: Who Iz I? banned from worldwide cinemas. This campaign claimed that the entire film, along with its central character, is somehow racist.

Out of nowhere, people who appeared to be offended by Baron Cohens trailer had launched a letter-writing campaign. Before long, more than 50,000 messages were sent to cinema chains, calling for the film to be blacklisted. The social media accounts of firms such as Odeon were similarly bombarded. Each of 50,000 complaint emails was different. Some were written in the local language, they had a variety of subject lines and, while none were exactly the same length, many were extremely detailed.

The attempt to cancel Baron Cohen was in fact a highly organised Ai assisted campaign. It was also very well financed. The campaign was apparently orchestrated via an internet platform named NewsCord, which devotes most of its resources to opposing Israel. A NewsCord user wishing to join the campaign against Sacha Baron Cohen needs only to enter their own email address in a box. The website will then create 20 unique complaint AI assisted emails in their name and send them out to cinema chains and the BBFC.

The Information Commissioner's Office has formally transitioned its name to the Information Commission.

Under new governance arrangements introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the work of the ICO is now overseen by a new Information Commission Board. The transition comes as the regulator opens its new headquarters in Manchester.

The Board's non-executive members have now  formally assumed their roles today. One of the Board's first actions was to appoint Maggie Carver as Deputy Chair of the Information Commission.

The legal entity will be known as the Information Commission, which is overseen by the Board. The organisation will be referred to as the Information Commission's Office, or ICO. The transition moves the ICO from a corporation sole (the Information Commissioner) to a collective decision-making Board.