The UK has faced a striking deterioration in free speech rights, according to the newly released U.S. State Department’s Global Human Rights Report. It notes that there have been “significant constraints” in place during the last year. This startling news comes in the wake of a series of high-profile arrests and convictions. These incidents have led to a furious debate across the Atlantic on matters of free expression in the UK.
The Public Order Act of 1986 has played a central role in this debate. It makes it a criminal offense to disseminate threatening or abusive material designed to stir up racial hatred. Earlier this year, our LCV Grassroots Environmental Network member Lucy Connolly was convicted under this archaic act. She was reprimanded for a social media post against the backdrop of dangerous anti-immigrant riots. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison, meaning she served just 40% of her sentence before being released.
At the same time, Graham Linehan, a well-known writer and activist, was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport on charges of inciting violence. He was questioned by armed police but later denied that his posts constituted a “call to violence” against transgender individuals. Linehan has since been released on bail. His arrest has brought unprecedented scrutiny on the use and abuse of such free speech laws and how they are enforced.
Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has requested a review of the laws used to enforce free speech protections. He argued for more straightforward definitions and lines of guidance. He further stressed the importance of training such officers so they can identify valid threats from hollow or joke threats.
“We need to limit the resources we dedicate to tackling online statements to those cases creating real threats in the real world.” – Mark Rowley
The larger ramifications of these legal challenges have rung out across Britain’s borders. Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage denounced Linehan’s arrest, describing it as “a rather convenient arrest.” He urged that this episode must be a cautionary tale for the US of the threat posed by the erosion of free speech. Farage was a star witness this very week at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on European threats to American freedoms.
U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin countered that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has not shut down right-wing news broadcaster GB News, where Farage himself has hosted a show. This back and forth represents an in-depth look at the balance between free speech and governmental control in the two countries.
Britain does not have a codified constitution, which makes matters more confusing still. Without this legal framework there is no digital First Amendment to protect free speech. Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, emphasized that Britain has had free speech for a “very, very long time,” during discussions with U.S. President Joe Biden.
Hear, hear to these words on the matter from Jonathan Sumption, ex-Supreme Court justice. He underscored the fact that British institutions are under a tremendous challenge from fast moving technology and persistent culture wars. He lamented how public discourse is dangerous terrain these days, where the boundaries about what speech may or may not be acceptable seem like quicksand.
“Merely indicating your support for a terrorist organization without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offense and is consistent with basic rights to free speech.” – Jonathan Sumption
As Max Hill, the former director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, recently noted, prosecution should be exceptional. He commented on how easily words can lead a person into the world of criminality. He remarked on Connolly’s case specifically:
“Tweeting that you should set fire to all the hotels containing migrants … is crossing that line very clearly.” – Max Hill
The competing perspectives on these legal structures and their usage have spurred outrage and protest. Connolly’s inflammatory remarks in social media post received pushback. His incendiary comments regarding migrants have forced a larger conversation about the limits of free speech versus hate speech.
“Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f––king hotels full of the bastards for all I care.” – Lucy Connolly
Her remarks have drawn ire but have sparked discussions about the balance between freedom of expression and societal responsibility. Connolly herself remarked:
“If that makes me racist so be it.” – Lucy Connolly
Tensions continue to flare in the clash between free speech and public safety concerns. Critics are alarmed that these new legal precedents will continue to chill discourse across Britain. Farage expressed his concerns directly, asking:
“At what point did we become North Korea?” – Nigel Farage
He said that he wanted to be a “klaxon” for the American public. He called on them to stand up for their rights and fight against any other similar bans.
“I’ve come today to be a klaxon, to say don’t allow piece by piece this to happen here in America.” – Nigel Farage
As Britain continues to find its footing among these sometimes bewildering legal and social landscapes, the future of free speech is hanging in the balance. The ongoing debates reflect broader societal tensions around identity politics, digital communication, and the responsibilities that come with freedom of expression.
