Inside the UK's under-16 social media ban: AI girlfriends, Bluesky, and a few open questions



Alongside the fact that the British government is now apparently in the business of regulating AI girlfriends, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer just announced a sweeping ban on social media for anyone under 16 in the U.K.

Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X are the platforms named so far in the U.K. government's official announcement. Modeled on Australia's ban, the list may not be final.

'Is this simply overt political censorship?'

Restrictions will also be enforced on gaming sites, including blocks on livestreaming and stranger communication with children under 16.

Starmer previously said he was personally opposed to a "blanket ban," but according to GB News, a government consultation closed in May with nearly 120,000 responses and over 90% of parents backing a ban.

The U.K. government also preloaded the announcement with a spending pledge.

A £132.5 million "Every Child Can" program was unveiled to fund "enriching activities" in sports, art, and nature — framed as alternatives to doomscrolling.

RELATED: New York schools banned smartphones a year ago — and it seems to be a smart idea

Isabel Infantes/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

But nobody can say for sure whether Bluesky, the left-leaning alternative to X, is even covered by the ban. GB News says it "looks set to escape a ban" entirely, but according to LBC, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told a radio host on Monday, "In Australia, Bluesky is included in the ban, and we plan to use their model."

Reem Ibrahim of the Reason Foundation suggested the ban could be a form of "political censorship": "The UK is banning under-16s from social media, under the guise of 'protecting kids', but it will not include Bluesky. Is this simply overt political censorship?"

The U.K. government's definition is broad enough to cover almost any app "whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allow users to post material" and therefore could include sites like Reddit, Pinterest, and Tumblr.

And buried in the same announcement is a ban on under-18s using "romantic companion chatbots," with all AI chatbots required to dial back "intimate functionalities" for minors.

Washington isn't thrilled either. In its formal response, the U.S. Embassy in London said it preferred "narrowly targeted requirements" over "broad social media bans," adding that "most content should remain accessible by default, including political speech."

Making any of this stick will likely require platforms to confirm who is underage, though the government has not said how that will work yet.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Fetterman Says He’ll Start Wearing Suits If Graham Platner Proves He Didn’t Send ‘D*ck Pics’ To Minors

'You can set the record clear'

Leading Ethics Journal Floats Forced Abortion For Minors

Forced abortion is what a culture of death has now wrought, and a leading academic journal thought the proposal worth publishing.

SCOTUS rules on law banning 'conversion therapy' — and 2 liberal justices break rank



In a nearly unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on one state's ban on conversion therapy for minors, resulting in an important First Amendment win and setting a possible precedent for many states with similar laws on the books.

In an 8-1 decision released Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that, when applied to talk therapy, Colorado's ban on minor-directed conversion therapy — or any therapy that attempts to "change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity" — "regulates speech based on viewpoint" in violation of the First Amendment.

'The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.'

The Colorado law, passed in 2019, was adopted "in response to a growing mental health crisis among Colorado teenagers and mounting evidence that conversion therapy is associated with increased depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts." The law thus prohibited licensed counselors from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors, according to the opinion.

Kaley Chiles, a mental health counselor in Colorado, brought the suit against Patty Salazar, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.

RELATED: SCOTUS sides with officer over protester in qualified immunity case, reversing lower-court opinion

Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post/Getty Images

The ruling overturns a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which ruled in favor of the law, not finding any violation of Chiles' First Amendment rights.

However, the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concluded:

In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint. Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.

Gorsuch added that the law in question not only regulates the content of Chiles' speech, but "goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express."

Justice Elena Kagan, together with fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined the majority opinion, but wrote a concurring opinion "only to note that if Colorado had instead enacted a content-based but viewpoint-neutral law, it would raise a different and more difficult question."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson alone dissented from the majority: "Stated simply, the majority has failed to appreciate the crucial context in which Chiles's constitutional claims have arisen. Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional."

While these facts were clearly established in the syllabus and the body of the majority's opinion, Jackson's primary contention, stated at the end of her dissent, was that "the majority's holding means, in effect, that just because Chiles is a talk therapist — and not, say, a surgeon — a State can be prevented from incidentally imposing reasonable restrictions on the treatments she provides."

"To do anything else opens a dangerous can of worms," Jackson concluded. "It threatens to impair States' ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect."

Matt Walsh, noted for his documentary "What is a Woman?," weighed in on the decision, attacking Jackson's attempt to uphold the ban:

To be clear, this was a law that attempted to ban therapists from telling gender confused boys that they're actually boys, and girls that they're actually girls. It was literally a law prohibiting anyone in the therapy profession from verbally acknowledging biological reality to their clients. Easily one of the most psychotic pieces of legislation ever passed anywhere in the world at any time in history. The fact that Ketanji Jackson tried to uphold this law — even as her fellow liberals broke ranks with her — just proves again that she is the most unfit, unqualified, unhinged lunatic to ever hold a seat on the Supreme Court.

Colorado is one of more than 20 states with laws prohibiting conversion therapy.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

TikTok Pushes Sexual Content To Minors While Censoring Christian Games: Report

All seven accounts soon 'encountered pornographic content just a small number of clicks after setting up the account.'

Biden-appointed judge makes 3 a.m. phone call to issue emergency block on deportations



A federal judge appointed by President Biden said conflicting stories have given her no choice but to block a round of deportation orders.

A lawsuit was filed after 1 a.m. on Sunday by the legal activist group National Immigration Law Center. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she received notice of the complaint at 2 a.m. and subsequently called the U.S. attorney's office and left a voice message at 3:43 a.m.

The judge left word with federal authorities asking for a hearing before she issued an emergency motion that halted the deportation of a group of 76 illegal immigrants. She even moved the hearing up by three hours when she discovered the deportations were already under way.

'I have conflicting narratives from both sides here.'

The issue, however, was that these illegal immigrants were minors who were set to be reunified with their families in Guatemala.

"The Court ORDERS that [Homeland Security] cease any ongoing efforts to transfer, repatriate, remove, or otherwise facilitate the transport of any Plaintiff or member of the putative class from the United States," Sooknanan wrote, per ABC News.

Sooknanan also called it "surprising" that the government was "attempting to remove minor children from the country in the wee hours of the morning on a holiday weekend."

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign claimed the illegal minors are actually undergoing a repatriation process and that "all of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return," according to Fox News.

However, the judge claimed that she has been receiving conflicting stories that have forced her hand.

RELATED: Tom Homan says Trump administration has located 23,000 of the 300,000 migrant children lost under Biden administration

"I have conflicting narratives from both sides here on whether what is happening here is an attempt to reunite these children with their parents or just return these children to Guatemala where they face harm," the judge stated.

Sooknanan said that in the court filings, the children themselves claimed that they were "afraid of going back to Guatemala" over a fear of abuse or neglect from their family members. One child also allegedly said their parents received a "strange phone call" about being deported back to Guatemala along with other minors.

Ensign's explanation was far more simple, claiming that the government of Guatemala had requested the return of the children, all of whom have "parents or guardians in Guatemala who are requesting" that they be brought back.

"[The] United States government is trying to facilitate the return of these children to their parents or guardians from whom they have been separated," Ensign said.

RELATED: Trump prepares massive immigration enforcement in sanctuary city

Judge Sparkle Sooknanap is blocking flights to *reunify* Guatemalan children with their families.

Now these children have to go to shelters.

This is disgusting and immoral. https://t.co/vIunZV6YFL
— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) September 1, 2025

In a post on X, Dept. of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the judge's order "disgusting and immoral," while oppositely, the NILC's Efrén Olivares called it a "dark and dangerous moment when our government chooses to target orphaned 10-year-olds."

After some of the children had already boarded planes or had arrived to the planes on buses in Harlingen and El Paso, Texas — ready for deportation — they are now in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

In total, the judge's order blocks the deportation of about 700 Guatemalan minors.

Homeland Security did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Matt Walsh's crusade pays off: SCOTUS protects Tennessee kids from gender mutilation



On Wednesday, the Supreme Court released its decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-related medical interventions for minors.

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, was a 6-3 decision, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The decision is a historic breakthrough in the fight against transgender ideology. Similar to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision for abortion, the Supreme Court has sent the issue back to the states by clarifying that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit state-level restrictions on sex-change procedures and puberty blockers for minors.

Skrmetti called out the Biden DOJ for what it was really doing: 'Attacking a bipartisan law that protects children from irreversible harm.'

This case has been building since September 2022 when the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh blew the whistle on Vanderbilt University for practicing gender-modification surgeries on minors. Walsh helped bring the issue to the attention of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. The Tennessee legislature took action and passed legislation the following February to ban the drugs and surgeries used to transition minors. The bill passed the Tennessee House 77-16, with 13 Democrats voting against it. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) signed the bill into law on March 2, 2023.

The left did not let the issue go quietly. On April 20, 2023, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Tennessee, claiming the law discriminated against children on the basis of sex. Six days later, the Biden Department of Justice joined in the legal attack, claiming the Tennessee law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. DOJ Assistant Attorney Kristen Clarke decried the law, saying it denied children "access to necessary medical care."

RELATED: 'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy

Vladimir Vladimirov/Getty Images

Skrmetti called out the Biden DOJ for what it was really doing: "Attacking a bipartisan law that protects children from irreversible harm."

Although District Judge Eli Richardson initially blocked the law, his decision was overturned that September by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the law finally went into effect.

Rather than admit defeat, the ACLU and Biden DOJ appealed the case, filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. The following June, the court agreed to hear the case, and oral arguments took place on December 4, 2024. The Supreme Court typically takes around six months to decide complex cases, making this June 18 decision a fairly standard timeline.

'Congress has no excuses left. If they have any moral sense, they will ... end this evil industry once and for all.'

The decision has been met with triumphant approval from conservatives. In a statement to Blaze Media, Matt Walsh summarized his work on the issue: "Three years ago, we ripped the lid off Vanderbilt’s sickening pediatric clinic. That ignited Tennessee’s child mutilation ban. Today, the Supreme Court upheld this protection of children and we won."

At the heart of the legal issue was the question of whether the Tennessee law discriminated on the basis of sex. If so, it would be subject to heightened legal scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts, in the majority opinion, clarified that the law did not do so. Rather, the law "prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex."

Consequently, the law "is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and satisfies rational basis review."

RELATED: Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?

Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

In a statement to Blaze Media, Dr. Brad Watson, a legal scholar at Hillsdale College’s Graduate School of Government, concurred with the majority opinion: "The Court was correct in refusing to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to a law prohibiting transgender treatment of minors. The majority recognizes that judges have no expertise in such matters and possess no constitutional warrant to second-guess legislative determinations so long as those determinations rest on a rational basis."

Similar to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, this decision gives states the freedom to legislate on the issue. The question that remains for conservatives is whether they will be able to effectively follow up on this decision with meaningful legislation at the state or national level.

Matt Walsh is among those pushing for the GOP to take decisive action to cement this victory. In his statement to Blaze Media, he called on Congress to ban these surgeries at a national level: "Congress has no excuses left. If they have any moral sense, they will end these state-by-state fights with a federal ban and end this evil industry once and for all."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In Landmark Skrmetti Case, Justice Thomas Demolishes The ‘Expert Class’

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has never been shy about telling it like it is in his Supreme Court opinions. So, it came as little surprise when he demolished the so-called “expert class” in the high court’s Wednesday opinion in U.S. v. Skrmetti. In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS deemed a Tennessee law prohibiting the surgical and […]

New Texas Law Targets Mass Screen Addiction Among Kids

Unless parents make a concerted effort to deal with the smartphone, the great majority of kids will never come close to reaching their full potential.

GOP North Dakota ex-senator sentenced for 'egregious and despicable' sex crime likely involving minor boys



A man who spent nearly half a century in the North Dakota state Senate will spend much of his remaining years behind bars after he pled guilty to a sex crime that likely involved minors.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland went above and beyond the recommended three-year sentence and instead sentenced former state Sen. Ray Holmberg (R-Grand Forks) to 10 years behind bars. Back in August, Holmberg pled guilty to one count of traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual activity.

'There was sexual contact with minors in the Czech Republic.'

The crime sounds bad enough, but the details of what Holmberg apparently did are nothing short of appalling. According to federal prosecutors, Holmberg traveled to Prague in the Czech Republic at least 14 times between 2011 and 2021 to stay at a brothel and pay young boys for sex.

Prosecutors described these boys as "extremely vulnerable" "homeless runaways who often lived in poverty." Unfortunately, law enforcement was never able to locate any of Holmberg's victims there, "but, make no mistake, this is not a victimless crime," prosecutors claimed.

"There is no doubt that Holmberg’s exploitation of them has had devastating consequences for them, which are long-lasting."

Holmberg, now 81, even admitted in court that he received massages from young men, that some of these massages involved sexual contact, and that some of the young men could have been under 18. He stopped short of admitting for certain that he had sexual contact with a minor, however, acknowledging only that he was not sure about their ages.

Judge Hovland was not convinced. "There was sexual contact with minors in the Czech Republic," he asserted. He likewise characterized Holmberg's actions as "egregious and despicable."

"From my perspective, this was not an isolated case and this is not a victimless crime," the judge continued. "It displays a pattern of very vile, sickening criminal behavior."

During the sentencing hearing, defense attorney Mark Friese argued that none of the victims in the case had been proven to be underage and that his client otherwise had no criminal record. Friese pushed for no prison time, citing Holmberg's age and health.

'What happens in Prague - Stays in Prague.'

Holmberg previously admitted that he traveled to foreign countries for these sexual encounters to protect his political career. According to prosecutors, he also wrote damning messages, some of which boasted of having sex with boys as young as 12:

  • "The boys rent at around $60 ... (sex is extra)," Holmberg sent along with a link to the Prague brothel;
  • "What happens in Prague - Stays in Prague";
  • "No one is ever to [sic] young ... remember Prague."
Holmberg dismissed those messages as mere "bravado" and "locker room talk."
Holmberg's sexual grooming of young men may even have had deadly consequences. Sometime in 2012 or 2013, Holmberg met a 16-year-old Canadian boy in an online chat room and managed to convince the young man to send him explicit photos, presumably of himself.

Less than a decade later, the Canadian young man took his own life. "No doubt Holmberg’s conduct contributed to his struggles," said prosecutor Jennifer Klemetsrud Puhl.

In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to drop the charges against Holmberg that related to child pornography.

By federal law, Holmberg will have to register as a sex offender. He is also forbidden any contact with minors except with permission from his probation officer. He will have further restrictions if he survives his 10-year sentence and is once again released back to the community.

Friese said he will confer with Holmberg about whether to appeal the sentence. Friese declined the AP's request for further comment.

First elected in 1976, Holmberg became one of the most powerful lawmakers in the state of North Dakota. He even chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee for a time. He resigned in 2022 and was indicted in 2023.

Holmberg was reportedly married once and has two children.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!