In 1576, Peter Wentworth, a Member of Parliament, dared to challenge Queen Elizabeth I’s ban on debating her succession in the House of Commons. As Jacob Rees-Mogg recently highlighted in his Substack, Wentworth’s declaration—“none is without fault, no, not our gracious Queen”—was revolutionary in its time, as one of the earliest claims to free speech in English parliamentary history. His defiance led to his imprisonment in the Tower of London, illustrating the conspicuous absence of free speech as a recognized natural right in an era dominated by royal authority. Though his advocacy helped lay the foundation for the principle of free speech in Parliament, the broader right of free expression in Britain remains far less secure. Unlike in the United States, where the First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of speech, Britain has no such constitutional guarantee. This omission leaves free speech precariously dependent on the political climate of the day. Increasingly, that climate suggests that Britain is at war with free speech and, consequently, natural law itself.
The idea of natural law, that certain rights are inherent to all human beings and discoverable through reason, forms the foundation of many of the freedoms Western societies cherish today. Among these, the right to free speech is non-negotiable, as it underpins the protection and exercise of all other rights. Speech allows individuals to engage in the pursuit of truth, hold governments accountable, and participate fully in civic life. To stifle this right is to deny the very dignity and agency of human beings.
Throughout history, defenders of natural law have recognized the importance of free speech, particularly in the fight against government overreach and censorship. John Milton’s Areopagitica, written in 1644, stands as one of the most eloquent defenses of free expression in Western history. Arguing against the practice of pre-publication censorship, Milton declared, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” His words remain resonant today and emphasize the universal pre-requisite for open discourse in the pursuit of truth. A century earlier, during the English Civil War, the Levellers similarly championed the right to speak and publish freely, advocating for accountability in government. Figures like Wentworth, Milton, and the Levellers remind us that free speech has always been hard-won in Britain, and its defense is an ongoing battle. Ironically though, a nation that once championed liberty through the Magna Carta and its common law tradition now finds itself drifting further from the natural law principles that inspired those milestones.
The Founding Fathers of the United States, most of whom traced their families back to England, understood this principle deeply. They enshrined freedom of speech in the First Amendment, recognizing that a free society cannot exist without it. Cases such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which established strong protections for criticism of public officials, demonstrate America’s commitment to robust public debate. Even in cases where limits on speech are imposed, such as Schenck v. United States (1919), the restrictions are narrowly defined, preserving the broad principle that speech should be as free as possible. Contrast this with Britain, where speech is, in essence, treated as a privilege to be regulated rather than an inalienable right. This disparity reflects not only a difference in legal frameworks but also a divergence in philosophical commitments. Where America has sought to universalize the principle of free speech, Britain has hedged it with exceptions that threaten to erode it altogether.
Britain’s patchwork approach to free speech has its roots in history. The 1689 Bill of Rights provided freedom of speech in Parliament, a necessary protection for MPs like Peter Wentworth who sought to debate controversial issues. However, this freedom was never extended to the public at large. For centuries, laws like seditious libel and blasphemy restricted speech deemed threatening to the state or religion. While many of these laws have been repealed, their spirit persists in modern legislation. The Public Order Act 1986, for example, criminalizes speech that is likely to cause “harassment, alarm, or distress.” Similarly, the Communications Act 2003 has been used to prosecute individuals for “grossly offensive” posts on social media. These laws, which are vague and subjective in their application, have created an environment where citizens must weigh their words carefully, lest they run afoul of authorities.
In recent decades, successive governments have exacerbated these issues. Under Tony Blair, Britain introduced hate speech laws that expanded the scope of restricted expression, particularly regarding race and religion. While intended to promote social harmony, these laws often have the opposite effect, silencing legitimate debate on sensitive topics (Blair, for the record, disagrees). More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the fragility of free speech in the face of government overreach. During the pandemic, British authorities used emergency powers to clamp down on dissent, labeling criticism of lockdowns and vaccine mandates as “misinformation.” While public health concerns were real, the suppression of alternative viewpoints undermined public trust and set a dangerous precedent for future crises.
Another flashpoint in Britain’s free speech battle has been the case of Tommy Robinson, a controversial figure whose critiques of mass migration and Islamist extremism have drawn both support and condemnation. Robinson’s legal battles, including his imprisonment for contempt of court, are a microcosm of the tension between upholding the rule of law and protecting the right to express what may be harsh or unpopular views. While Robinson’s rhetoric may be inflammatory, his treatment raises important questions about whether Britain’s legal system values free speech as much as it claims to. Mass migration itself has become a minefield for public discourse. Those who question immigration policies risk being labeled xenophobic or even prosecuted under hate speech laws. This chilling effect stifles not only individual expression but also the broader societal debate essential to democratic governance.
Under Keir Starmer’s Labour government, free speech faces renewed challenges. Starmer has expressed support for stricter online regulations, including combating “harmful” content on social media platforms. While the intent may be to protect vulnerable residents of Britain, such measures often devolve into subjective judgments about what constitutes harm, with the potential to suppress legitimate discourse. Starmer’s approach is emblematic of a broader trend in British politics: the prioritization of “safety” and “inclusivity” over liberty. While these goals may be noble in the abstract, they cannot come at the expense of free speech, which is the cornerstone of a free society. Without the ability to speak openly, no society can claim to be truly inclusive or safe.
It is also worth mentioning that Elon Musk has ramped up his criticism of the UK government’s approach to free speech. Following the August riots, British MPs announced plans to summon Musk to testify about his social media platform X’s role in disseminating disinformation. In response, Musk declared that UK MPs “will be summoned to the United States of America to explain their censorship and threats to American citizens.” This clash reflects the growing tension between advocates of unrestricted expression, such as Musk, and governmental bodies seeking to regulate online content, illustrating the precarious state of free speech in Britain.
Free speech is not just an American ideal—it is a universal principle rooted in natural law. As conservatives across the West confront the challenges of censorship, cancel culture, and government overreach, they must rally around free speech as a cornerstone of liberty. As I recently wrote, “The First Amendment should be America’s gift to the world—a standard of liberty, not an exception.” Britain, with its rich tradition of liberty, has a unique opportunity to reclaim its commitment to free speech. This requires more than repealing restrictive laws; it demands a cultural shift that values open dialogue over comfort, debate over censorship, and liberty over control. In the words of Peter Wentworth, “None is without fault, no, not our gracious Queen.” If Britain is to remain a free society, it must embrace this principle anew, ensuring that freedom of speech is not just the privilege of Parliament but the birthright of all its citizens.
Michael J. Hout is the Editor of Liberty Affair. He currently resides in Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on X: @michaeljhout
Leave a Reply Cancel Reply