Sir Keir Starmer contradicts JD Vance over ‘infringements on free speech’ claim

37 comments

1. Too right he did. He’s Prime Minister of the UK he’s not going to be lectured by a nobody like JD Vance

2. “We are proud of our history of free speech.” This is basically the weakest and most politician-y response he could realistically give.

3. Looks like he has been briefed by “getting jailed for mean tweets” crowd. Speaking of free speech, Starmer should have mentioned Trump Admin’s ban on Associated press & Reuters access to the white house for “mean questions”.

4. The US has some of the most restrictive speech currently going. You can’t mention dei, trans people, criticise trump or musk, call it the gulf of Mexico ….

5. If the British voters think the government is cracking down too hard on speech then they’ll factor that in at the next election.

6. The only JD from the states worth caring about is Jack Daniels.

7. Free speech is not the same as saying anything you want without consequences

8. Keir politely said “Get back to humping sofas, James, the big boys are talking.”

9. Vance : U don’t have FOS

   Starmer : Yes we do

   Redditors : Such based! Much Wow!

10. That wasn’t much of a contradiction. A contradiction would be to openly say Vance was completely wrong in his opinions on British free speech. He didn’t explicitly say that he just mumbled about being proud of British free speech

11. The DOJ is investigating a US congressman for calling Elon a dick while in congress. This is supposed to be protected by both free speech and his congressional rights. So who exactly has a free speech problem?

12. These days, if you say you’re English you get arrested and thrown in jail

13. The US – will allow you to say what you want but won’t allow you to be heard. Ban selected Press from the White House, ban ‘woke’ books from schools and libraries, etc etc

14. As Trump was told by the judge in his defamation trial. There isn’t absolute free speech. There are some things you can say and somethings you can’t say:

15. So as to a reminder about ‘Freedom of speech’ as defined by the U.S. constitution-
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

    Republicans in congress violate this basically all the time by using religious doctrine as a pretext for the bills they pass.

    The scope of freedom of speech as defined here is also actually very narrow- it indicates that no law can be passed by congress to prevent people from assembling peacefully, and that criticism of the government is protected speech.

    In the UK, I don’t believe we have any such law enshrined in our constitution (a lot of constitutional law is also based on court decisions and not explicitly written). The police also actually have broad powers to demand that gatherings be broken up and for protesters to be detained with much less oversight, as a result of the Police Crime Sentencing and Courts act 2022.

    But, guess who gets the brunt of that particular change in law? Climate protesters. Some of whom have received sentences of 5 years in prison for protesting.

    So yes, there are infringements on the freedom of speech in the UK, but probably not the ones Vance is thinking of in terms of Tommy Robinson’s lot wanting to lynch/molotov asylum seekers and the UK government informing them that they cannot do that.

16. Honestly people are overblowing this each way we definitely don’t have free speech like the US does.

    Honestly I’m not a big fan of Starmer but it was good to see Trump and his cabinet clearly hold us in a different regard to the rest of the EU it was all good signs coming out of the press conference, I think Kier actually handled the whole thing brilliantly.

17. I used to be against how UK free speech works, favouring the US approach. But recent years have changed my mind. Even UK defamation law which I previously thought was wild I have come around on. Still has flaws and is abusable by a litigious individual but better than how the US does it where if it is a public figure you can basically say anything.

18. We technically don’t have freedom of speech.

    >the power or right to express one’s opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

    There are many things you are not allowed to express here.

    What Vance is concerned about is the UK prosecuting people for:

    – [Censoring UK journalists from publishing information.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order)

    – [Using police force to intimidate and restrain documentary makers.](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/19/channel4.ofcom1)

    – [Prosecuting someone for their stupid videos.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925)

    Etc. Etc.

    Now I’m a proponent for certain things been restricted (terrorism, criminal acts etc). But don’t all pat yourselves pretending this was a sting by Starmer.

    The government, police force and society has actively suppressed information on the spreading activism and extremism of Islam in this country. Something I’m glad the USA is calling us out on.

19. No country allows its citizens to say absolutely whatever they like without consequence.

20. Good. Can’t have them peddling their nonsense when he is sat right there.

21. The word you’re looking for is, corrected, not contradicted.

22. ‘contradicts’? . . you mean corrects surely.

    words matter!!

23. What would Churchill have thought of this whole exchange I wonder? Starmer didn’t exactly say much in Canada’s defence. Asked about his thoughts in Trump saying he’d like to annex us, he responds with “oh there is no issue here” meanwhile Trump tells him to shut up.

    For that matter, what does the King think? What would the late Queen have thought?

24. I would hate to be American.

    Look at that shit eating grin on Vance. Him and Trump are a pair of complete muppets.

    They want free speech when it benefits them, but if it throws shade their way, they’re the first to kick up a stink and cry foul, proper gimps.

25. No, we don’t have free speech.

    Yes, we can say things, and if their mean or whatever we get punished, not particularly free, is it?

    The issue with our system is that the goal post can move. Your opinions have to always be on the “right” side of history, you never say anything even remotely controversial at fear of being punished by the state, and if what’s punishment worthy gradually expands over time, when does it stop?

    When will you go, “Oh, this is a bit far, I don’t think what I said was all that bad.”

    I am not advocating for violence. Saying people should be burnt alive is vile and anti-British in sentiment. But we should absolutely have a right to talk about things that worry us and express concern about the state of the nation whenever we please.

    Yes, saying mean things is bad, questioning science is bad because you’ve been told it is, but rivalling norms is what has taken us this far as a country and civilisation.

26. This thread smells like it’s been brigaded the “ack-tually we don’t have free speech because I can’t call for violence against brown people without getting in trouble” crowd.

27. JD Vance lecturing Europe on free speech when Trump won’t allow journalists he doesnt like to ask questions and when he bans words he doesnt like from official documents is fucking rich.

    When I said this on r/conservatives, the reply was “at least we dont get jailed for it”

    Cant make this shit up.

28. “Waaah. I face consequences for being openly hateful and bigoted. Dem wokies takin muh freeze peach” The average MAGAt.

29. Yet someone has just been arrested, dragged through the courts, and given a criminal conviction for shouting Chelsea Rent Boys at the football.

    Don’t think so kier. One tier of society might have free speech. The natives don’t

30. Americans, particularly right-wing americans, are obsessed with lecturing the UK on its own laws. They’ll cite cases with incomplete stories, inadequate information, and say “you don’t have free speech”, or more extreme descriptions “you live in a facist state” or some bullshit. It’s dumb as fuck.

31. You can mostly say what you want in the UK – people will just think you’re a cunt if you’re racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

    If you stand outside a family planning centre to intimidate people, or tell people that are having an abortion they’re terrible people / going to hell – you deserve a talking to at the very least from the police.

    You can’t however threaten to kill or harm someone, tell others to burn down buildings, or incite crowds to violence… because… why would you want to let people get away with that?

32. What these so called Free Speech warriors actually want is freedom from manners, especially towards minorities.

33. Thing is, I’d be all for complete 100% free speech, if I thought people could be civil. But time and time again, we’ve seen that there are some who can’t be civil.

    Even if you disagree with someone, it doesn’t hurt to be civil and respectful.

    Think about religion for example. It’s a belief system someone has, and it’s ok to disagree and debate, but some people take their disagreement to a level of hostility which isn’t called for in a civil society.

    Same with issues on sex/gender etc. By all means, disagree with stuff, but the second you slip into dehumanising someone, it becomes something else that isn’t civil or respectful.

    We’re British. We do respect and civility very well when we want to. All it takes it to treat each other as human beings.

34. ‘Contradicts’

    Come on Sky News. The PM pointed out that Trump’s lackey is *lying*. That’s the story here. Support your own leader, bloody hell.

35. When people, like Vance, complain about the lack of free speech in the UK what they are actually complaining about is not being able to be openly racist, homophobic and hateful in public. Let’s be honest.

36. I really hope this stuff increases Starmer’s popularity in the UK. From the bits I’ve seen, he’s so much more statesmanlike than the nut job he’s sat next to. Head and shoulders above him

37. Sir Keir Starmer *corrrects* JD Vance over ‘infringements on free speech’ claim.

Comments are closed.