{"id":56588,"date":"2025-04-28T05:01:08","date_gmt":"2025-04-28T05:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/56588\/"},"modified":"2025-04-28T05:01:08","modified_gmt":"2025-04-28T05:01:08","slug":"does-the-u-k-have-free-speech-deseret-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/56588\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the U.K. have free speech? \u2013 Deseret News"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arrests for \u201chate speech,\u201d buffer-zone violations and non-crime hate incidents in the United Kingdom have gained international attention, especially after Vice President JD Vance\u2019s Munich Security Conference speech<\/a> in February, where he said that free speech in the U.K. and across Europe is \u201cin retreat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Vance\u2019s declaration drew a mixed reaction from Europeans and Americans. In the Oval Office<\/a>, shortly after Vance\u2019s remarks, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended his country\u2019s free speech protections. \u201cWe\u2019ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time,\u201d he told Vance and President Trump.<\/p>\n

But others, including Douglas Carswell, a former member of British Parliament and current president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, believe Vance\u2019s speech was largely correct \u2014 that speech censorship in Europe is a security threat.<\/p>\n

In the U.K., the daily rate of arrests for offensive social media posts has over doubled since 2017, and the most recent data shows 30 of these arrests happening a day, according to custody data obtained by the British newspaper, The Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Recent headline-making examples of these arrests include an incident from February, when 74-year-old Rose Dougherty from Scotland was arrested for standing silently within a buffer zone near Glasgow\u2019s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, where abortions are performed. Police found her holding a sign that said, \u201cCoercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.\u201d Dougherty faces a \u00a310,000 ($13,000) fine, per The Free Press<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Several months earlier in in late July last year, Jamila Abdi, a young Black woman from London, was charged<\/a> under the 2003 Communications Act for using the n-word to refer to Alexander Isak, a Swedish footballer, in an X post. While in the U.S. a person could receive a civil penalty or an enhanced criminal penalty for using the n-word, on its own using the word is not a crime.<\/p>\n

In November, Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson had two Essex police officers come to her home<\/a> over an allegedly racist X post with the caption, \u201cLook at this lot smiling with the Jew haters.\u201d<\/p>\n

These three incidents are among 250,000 recorded \u201cnon-crime hate incidents\u201d since 2014, according to the Free Speech Union<\/a>, a London-based interest group that views the number as cause for concern.<\/p>\n

Sarah McLaughlin, a senior scholar of global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told the Deseret News she believes the current state of online speech censorship in the U.K. would \u201cshock Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI think a lot of Americans would be sort of disturbed by the idea that you haven\u2019t committed a crime, but the police are still going to show up at your house and scold you, and it\u2019s going to be in some kind of record eternally,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Amid this uptick in speech policing, reactions among Britons to the policy changes in their country differ.<\/p>\n

The policy behind Britain\u2019s free speech crack down<\/p>\n

America\u2019s First Amendment<\/a> is unique. It states, \u201cCongress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble… .\u201d<\/p>\n

British laws that govern what speech is acceptable and what is grounds for incitement to violence are more complicated.<\/p>\n

Incitement in Great Britain<\/a> has a much broader definition than in the U.S. It covers indirect influence and can be applied to future crimes, even if a crime is not yet planned.<\/p>\n

Carswell pointed to three key policies in the U.K. he believes have led to higher policing of British speech.<\/p>\n