Share this post:

The government is reconsidering laws that restrict free speech after a comedy scriptwriter was arrested for allegedly inciting violence on X.

Graham Linehan – co-creator of legendary Channel 4 comedy Father Ted – said the case relates to three posts he made in April about “challenging a trans-identified male in a female-only space”. Critics said his comments amounted to incitement, while supporters argued it was legitimate opinion.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said law enforcers should be policing our streets, not our tweets – which is a good soundbite but, without some form of legal recourse, online debate may become a toxic free-for-all.

The UK’s attitude to free speech is much different from that in the United States; in America, the First Amendment guarantees an almost absolute right to say whatever you like. Here, we balance free expression with responsibility. Laws against harassment, threats and incitement exist to protect citizens from harm.

Relaxing the laws that led to Linehan’s arrest has advantages:

• It protects freedom of expression, preventing overreach in which people are arrested for controversial or offensive opinions rather than genuine threats, and reinforcing the principle that in a democracy, speech should only be criminalised if it causes serious harm (like direct incitement to violence).
• It reduces pressure on police, freeing up resources to deal with burglary, knife crime, violence, and anti-social behaviour rather than online posts.
• It clarifies the law: current legislation (parts of the Communications Act 2003, Malicious Communications Act 1988, and Online Safety Act provisions) can be vague or overly broad. Narrowing the scope would give police clearer guidance.
• It will improve public confidence: arrests like Linehan’s often spark backlash and make the public doubt whether the law is fair. Scaling back could restore trust.

But there are also drawbacks:

The risk of harmful content spreading: looser laws may allow more hate speech, abuse, and harassment to circulate online, which can have real-world effects (like radicalisation or intimidation of minorities).

A potential increase in online abuse: victims of harassment — especially women, LGBTQ+ people, or minorities — may be left with less legal protection if thresholds for offences are raised.

Harm to the UK’s international reputation: the UK has positioned itself as a leader in regulating online platforms. Rolling back may look like a retreat on tackling harmful speech, especially when the US and EU are debating stronger regulation.

Political opportunism: relaxing laws now, in response to a high-profile arrest, could be seen as reactive rather than principled law-making — and might create new loopholes or unintended consequences.

One such consequence might be that, without some form of recourse against abusive or threatening behaviour, online debate could easily descend into a toxic free-for-all. So laws allowing arrests for behaviour like Linehan’s would need to be replaced by education on responsible speech.

People must be reminded that freedom of expression comes with responsibility for the consequences of what they say. Without that, we risk giving a free pass to bullies and rabble-rousers.

There are several ways to balance freer speech with less toxicity:

• Media literacy & education: schools, universities, and public campaigns can help people understand how online speech works — teaching critical thinking, fact-checking, and how to engage without abuse. This is already happening in some EU states alongside digital regulation.
• Civic responsibility messaging: government and civil society leaders can model the idea that “freedom of speech comes with responsibility”. That sets a tone: people are free to criticise, but incitement and harassment are socially unacceptable even if not always criminal.
• Support for targets of abuse: journalists, activists, and ordinary users need robust reporting tools, helplines, and possibly legal aid when facing campaigns of harassment. Otherwise, the chilling effect shifts from fear of police to fear of mobs.
• Platform accountability: even if laws are relaxed, social platforms can still be pressured to enforce community standards consistently. A balance might be to keep the state out of censoring but still require companies to act against coordinated harassment or bot-driven disinformation.
• And political restraint: populist rabble-rousing is fuelled when senior politicians deliberately escalate online outrage. A cultural shift — where leaders stop treating social media like a megaphone for wedge issues — would make a huge difference.

Let’s be crystal clear: populist groups like Reform UK will almost certainly try to spin any move towards “responsible speech” as an attack on them personally. They are already crying censorship whenever they face accountability for their words. Expect them to do it again.

And bear in mind another side to this debate that is mentioned above: the social media platforms themselves. Broadcasters have already noted that sites like X, Facebook and YouTube promote provocative speech because it drives engagement and makes them money. Outrage is their business model.

That makes it harder for calmer, more reasoned voices (like that of Vox Political) to be heard – and it’s an issue politicians have so far been reluctant to confront.

So yes, it is right to look again at the laws.

But unless ministers also address the wider culture of toxic online speech – and the platforms that profit from it – any reform will be cosmetic, and the powerful will go on manipulating “free speech” for their own ends.

Share this post: