Is freedom of speech on life support in the UK?
Ian Haworth
Video Embed
Freedom of speech is officially on life support in the United Kingdom, if it was ever alive at all, after a man was handed a four-month jail sentence for a racially abusive message on social media.
The sentence, suspended for two years, occurred alongside a three-year ban from every soccer ground in the U.K. — the first such banning order issued under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022.
WHY THE BBC’S STAR SOCCER PRESENTER WAS JUST SUSPENDED OVER POLITICAL COMMENTS
The message in question was sent by Antonio Neill, a 24-year-old man from Northumberland, and targeted soccer player Ivan Toney, a 26-year-old striker for Brentford and England.
Last October, Toney shared an image of the racially abusive message on Twitter, which sparked a police investigation.
Now, much of the British response to this saga surrounds the three-year ban on attending soccer matches — for some, that would seem a reward! But for those of us who value fundamental freedoms more than paying to watch metrosexual men flopping around on a grass field, this sentencing may constitute the latest nail in the well-worn coffin of free speech in the U.K.
It should be acknowledged, first, that Neill’s message targeting Toney was indeed racist and deeply offensive. Such behavior should be condemned without question.
But a prison sentence, albeit suspended, demonstrates that freedom of speech in the U.K. is nothing other than a meaningless phrase, especially when we consider this as part of a pattern of legislative actions punishing speech.
In September 2018, South Yorkshire Police called for residents to report “offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing.” In February 2021, a man was criminally charged in Scotland for posting “an offensive tweet.” And in September 2022, a man was arrested and charged with “breach of the peace” after he yelled “You’re a sick old man!” at Prince Andrew during the queen’s funeral procession.
Again, it’s not morally good to abuse anyone online or mock deceased war heroes or even declare that Andrew, a sick old man, is a sick old man during his mother’s funeral.
The deeper issue remains that, time after time, a line has been crossed in the U.K. regarding the admittedly uncomfortable but necessary protection of unpalatable speech. This should stand as an ever-clearer warning of the importance of the First Amendment.
The brutal truth is that while numerous Western nations claim to respect and protect freedom of speech, only the United States means it — at least for now.
And yes, there are rare exceptions to the First Amendment recognized by the Supreme Court. According to Robert Richards, founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment, the “categories of speech” that fall outside of the First Amendment’s protection are “obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence,” all while, according to Cornell Law School, a “comprehensive, legal definition of obscenity has been difficult to establish.”
But while there remain legitimate debates surrounding the definition of obscenity, we should be able to appreciate the underlying danger posed to freedom of speech when supposedly free societies gleefully crack down on the speech of their citizens.
Then again, when people seem more concerned about not being able to attend soccer games, is the erosion of their free speech rights any surprise?
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Ian Haworth (@ighaworth) is the host of Off Limits with Ian Haworth.