The censors are back in town. Last week, the people who want to use the power of the state to prevent us hearing any views they disagree with yet again chose to weaponise Ofcom in their interests. And once again, their target is GB News.

In June and July, on two separate GB News discussion programmes, two guests gave voice to some pretty heterodox views. In June, ultra-conservative commentator Syntyche Djunga spoke about the now infamous case of the baby who died after being subjected to sexual abuse by his gay adopted parents. Among other things, she suggested that gay men are prone to higher rates of domestic abuse, and are statistically more likely to commit sexual assault against adopted children.

The following month, Catholic commentator Caroline Farrow, commenting on the London Pride march, suggested some participants were promoting not gay rights, but some ‘bizarre and unhealthy kinks and quirks’ and even ‘bestiality’ and ‘paedophilia’.

For these two segments, some 17,000 people sent complaints to Ofcom. And last week, Ofcom announced it was investigating both programmes for causing offence. If the complaints are upheld, GB News faces very substantial sanctions.

This should worry us all, even if you yourself seriously dislike what Djunga and Farrow said. Those complaining aren’t mostly GB News viewers. They are members of the ‘progressive’ class, who detest this popular channel with a passion – and all because it gives voice to views they disagree with. They would love to use any opportunity they can to squash or neuter it.

The complaints against GB News appear to be part of a concerted campaign. After all, Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project is involved. This is an organisation that has an entire webpage entitled ‘Let’s keep GB News in check’, and has illustrated its Instagram page with a picture of Farrow with her mouth taped over. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has also stuck his oar in, signing an open letter demanding Ofcom takes action against GB News.

It is important to note what these complaints were about. They weren’t concerned with the expression of an official view of the station itself, nor yet an unguarded remark showing a maverick presenter in his or her true colours. Nor is it suggested that the station ran simpering interviews in which people with controversial opinions were invited to rant with no push-back. On the contrary, in both cases, Djunga and Farrow faced spirited disagreement. So these latest complaints concern the simple fact that guests were invited on to discussion programmes, and gave opinions that ‘progressives’ didn’t like.

Those using Ofcom in this way are effectively demanding old-fashioned state censorship. They believe the views of people like Djunga and Farrow should not be aired or even debated – they must simply be kept off broadcast media entirely. The open letter from Polanski and others nicely lets this cat out of the bag. ‘How is it’, it says, that GB News and others ‘are allowed to say that Pride is about celebrating minor attraction and bestiality when it’s not true’. The letter goes on to say to Ofcom: ‘Do your job and hold these channels to account. It’s so dangerous to allow lies like this to appear as fact when people don’t think critically.’ That is their real target – the viewers or, as they contemptuously see them, ‘people who don’t think critically’.

It remains to be seen what Ofcom now does. We hope that it will have the tact to step back from openly taking sides in the culture war. But don’t hold your breath. Ofcom has come down hard on GB News in the past, and could well do so again.

Meanwhile, the case for drastically cutting back Ofcom’s powers to dictate what can be said on the broadcast media is now unanswerable. In a quiet but deadly way, Ofcom has allowed itself to become the provisional wing of the censorial progressive establishment, on call to shut down any debate that the establishment disapproves of and to make life difficult for anyone who allows it. GB News may be able to stand up to pressure of this sort. Smaller outlets may not be.

Our diverse independent broadcasting landscape is seriously threatened. We need to act fast to protect it.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.