Share this post:

Why is the Trump administration in the United States attacking the UK for clamping down on free speech?

It’s a bold claim from a government that tries to muzzle critics, intimidate journalists, and silence dissent in its own country.

Apparently limitations on political speech deemed “hateful” or “offensive” are abhorrent to the US government now.

It has raised concerns about restrictions in laws like the Online Safety Act and tools like public space protection orders and “safe access zones” around abortion clinics that, according to critics, limit what people can legally say.

At first glance, this might seem like a classic free speech debate: the (UK) government v the citizen.

US criticism often assumes “free speech” is in line with the American First Amendment model.

In the UK, the tradition has always been different: the right to free speech has always been tempered by requirements of responsibility; we already have laws against harassment, or causing alarm or distress, and against stirring up hatred on grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, religion or sexual orientation. It is also prohibited to send “grossly offensive” or “menacing” messages electronically.

The deeper issue isn’t whether people are legally allowed to speak — it’s how society reacts to what is said.

Laws, guidance, and administrative rules aren’t just about speech itself; they exist to manage the potentially destructive consequences of speech.

Consider recent guidance from the UK government encouraging police to disclose a crime suspect’s ethnicity, nationality, or immigration status in high-profile cases.

The goal is transparency and the prevention of misinformation, but real-world events show the limits of this approach: in Southport in July 2024, the release of information about Axel Rudakubana’s background did not stop misinformation spreading, fuelling riots. In Liverpool in May this year (2025), police disclosed that a man arrested during the Premier League parade was white and British to prevent false rumours of terrorism – but even this full disclosure did not prevent riots.

When authorities act with the best intentions, public reaction — shaped by bias, rumour, and online amplification — often overrides official narratives.

Both the free speech debate and the policing guidance share the same underlying challenge: people are free to react destructively to information, whether it is speech, news, or official disclosure.

Attempts to regulate speech or control the flow of information are, in part, attempts to mitigate those reactions.

The laws that the US criticises are less about silencing ideas than about preventing harm that can arise from words being misinterpreted, weaponized, or amplified.

This pattern raises a broader moral and civic question: what kind of society do we want to be?

Do we valourise freedom to speak and act without restraint, even when it allows prejudice, rumour, or violence to flourish?

Or do we aim for a society where expression and information exist alongside norms, literacy, and safeguards that prevent destructive reactions?

Policies alone are not enough. True freedom — the kind worth defending — is inseparable from responsibility.

The UK examples show that transparency, regulation, and legal frameworks can only go so far; social dynamics ultimately determine whether free expression strengthens democracy or fuels chaos.

The debate isn’t just about laws, guidance, or even speech itself.

It’s about the freedom to act responsibly in a world where misinformation, bias, and outrage travel faster than facts.

Society has a responsibility to address that, and US government representatives are ill-advised to interfere in a system intended to protect both liberty and safety.

Share this post: