Free Speech: Where do we Draw the Line?

In Birmingham, the Reform UK held its annual conference which attracted much attention – Nigel Farage and his party calling for the return of free speech here in the UK and for much greater controls over immigration, among other things.

On Saturday, nearly 900 people were arrested for taking part in a Stop the Ban on the Palestine Action Group in London. Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist group in the UK in July.

Across England, hundreds of mini roundabouts, potholes and lampposts have been adorned with the St George’s Cross – some more professionally than others as you can see from the photos (the one in the centre from Stroud just down the road from here).

And there was also the news that Father Ted creator (you may be a bit young to remember the programme which was a long running TV hit series) Graham Linehan, pictured here, was arrested by five armed Metropolitan Police officers as he stepped off a plane from the US at Heathrow Airport. His crime? Three tweets relating to transgender individuals on X which may have incited violence. Was this overkill? The Prime Minister and other ministers certainly thought so; Nigel Farage noted that the Police should be focusing on the “streets not tweets”. That said, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner reminded us that under the Public Order Act 1986, a crime may have been committed by Mr Linehan and needed investigating.

How do we make sense of all this?

We are living in very unstable times. Across Europe, there has been, and continues to be, a rise in populist right wing parties, calling for limits on immigration and a return to traditional national pride and Christian values.

Here in the UK, the Reform UK Party under Nigel Farage is using similarly emotive language to attract an increasing number of voters: a focus on bringing British History to the fore, controlling immigration sharply and returning to honest, hard work and community-based values. He may be our next Prime Minister in the not-too-distant future.

We recall the case of Lucy Connolly, who posted a tweet on X relating to the murders of three young girls in Southport last year, calling for mass deportation, setting fire to asylum hotels and calling the perpetrator an illegal immigrant (he was a UK national). She was jailed for 31 months in July last year for inciting violence and hate – but she was released last month and recently spoke at the Reform Party conference.

Others have waded into the debate and compared the UK to North Korea, whilst Boris Johnson (remember him?) said that British citizens are now lying “awake in the small hours waiting for the police to knock on your door – just because you were so foolish as to say something a bit off colour online”. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is happening.

Was Lucy Connolly guilty of hate speech? Or was she expressing a view to be shared with others that was entirely legitimate?

Many are worried that there is a free-speech crisis, particularly here in the UK, where legitimate debate has been eroded over recent years. They argue that instead of being able to discuss unpopular opinions, those who hold them are cancelled. Certain topics are no-go zones. Speakers are no-platformed. People are arrested for saying things on Social Media.

But others say that this so-called crisis is a fiction. That speech has never been fully free. There have always been inequalities in who gets to speak and be heard. They argue that we are simply seeing a redistribution of power where privileged groups are being challenged and held to account by those who have historically been marginalised.

That does not particularly help you as young people to find your voice in an increasingly confusing, politically sensitive and complex world.

Most agree that speech needs some limits but where do we draw the line? When does free speech become hate speech? Are truth and accuracy important – or even relevant to free speech? And how does social media help or hinder free speech?

These are all difficult and lengthy questions that I cannot answer here this morning. But they are questions that I hope many of you will debate over the coming days and weeks here in school. It is vitally important for you all that you think critically about this.

Here in the UK there are clear laws, passed by Parliament, which lay out the bounds of what constitutes hate speech. Lucy Connolly’s tweet clearly overstepped those bounds and she was rightly arrested and charged. Whether her sentence was appropriate is another, but different, argument.

But beyond the law, there is a whole different layer of behaviours that need to be navigated, particularly online. Where we draw the line in terms of the law is clear. But where do we draw the line with what we say? What rules or norms do we follow, particularly when it comes to online posts?

I realise I have probably given you more questions than answers this morning but perhaps that is a good thing. This is not a cut and dried debate but one which will continue and which you all need to be part of…because it is too important not to be.

My parting piece of advice for you is this: remember that on sensitive, controversial or complex topics, simple answers will never be forthcoming. We must all learn to be able to ‘disagree well’ and explore different perspectives in all our conversations. Try and avoid replicating the binary, extreme debate that we see all the time in society – the “you’re either this or that and with no wish to become the opposite” – and remember that there is a vast middle ground of uncertainty to be explored too.

Remember your online posts. Are they respectful, kind? If not, don’t post them.

Ultimately, for us this links into community and kindness. Last week, I spoke of the need that in a community like ours here at Wycliffe, kindness is all-important. And there is nowhere more important to express and exercise kindness and awareness of others in how we speak about and to each other.

Christian San Jose MA (Oxon)

Headmaster