The Strange Death of Free Speech in Britain, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

In 1935, George Dangerfield penned The Strange Death of Liberal England, chronicling the pre-World War I erosion of liberal values amid social upheaval. Fast-forward to 2025, and Britain faces a parallel crisis: the strange death of free speech. Once a beacon of liberty, from Magna Carta to the Enlightenment, the UK now arrests citizens for tweets, polices "non-crime hate incidents," and empowers regulators to scan online content under the guise of "safety." This isn't a sudden demise but a creeping authoritarianism, fuelled by bipartisan laws, overzealous policing, and a societal shift toward "safetyism." As arrests for online speech hit 12,000 annually, we must ask: How did the land of John Stuart Mill become a pioneer in digital censorship?

Britain's free speech crisis manifests in absurd, Orwellian vignettes. Take Graham Linehan, the Father Ted creator, arrested at Heathrow in September 2025 by five armed officers over months-old tweets criticising gender ideology. Or Deborah Anderson, a cancer patient and Trump supporter, visited by Thames Valley Police for an "upsetting" Facebook post she couldn't even recall, prompting her to threaten invoking Elon Musk. These aren't isolated; they're symptomatic of a surge in speech-related arrests.

Data reveals a grim picture: UK police make about 30 arrests daily for "offensive" online content, totalling over 12,000 in 2023, a 121% rise since 2017. Thames Valley Police alone logged 1,068 such arrests in a year under the Communications Act 2003, Malicious Communications Act 1988, and Online Safety Act 2023. By mid-2025, hundreds faced charges under the OSA for "illegal fake news" or "threatening communications," with dozens jailed. As one X user lamented, "30+ arrests a day — for posts? Not violence. Just words they don't like."

This "Carry On 1984" absurdity, as Free Speech Union founder Toby Young quipped, extends to protests. New government powers allow bans based on "cumulative impact," with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper dismissing unfettered rights: "Just because you have a freedom doesn't mean you have to use it at every moment." X discussions highlight fears this could target "sectarian" issues, potentially encompassing immigration or digital ID protests.

At the heart lies a web of laws prioritising "harm" over expression. The Online Safety Act (OSA) 2023, passed with cross-party support, mandates platforms remove "illegal" or "harmful" content, including 130 "priority harms." Ofcom, the regulator, proposes "additional safety measures" like mandatory reporting for livestreams (costing tens of thousands, potentially killing citizen journalism) and AI scanning for sites with 700,000+ users (up to £260,000 annually). It admits infringing privacy, expression, and association, but deems it "proportionate." Future plans? User ID verification for broadcasts, echoing "BritCard" fears.

Complementing this are "non-crime hate incidents" (NCHIs), logging 370,000 cases over a decade without evidence or trial, stemming from the Macpherson Report post-Stephen Lawrence murder. These can derail careers, as seen in police visits over "hurty words." The Communications Act criminalises "annoying" messages, while the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act curbs "nuisance" protests.

Bipartisan blame abounds: Tories laid the groundwork; Labour accelerates. As Fleur Elizabeth Meston notes, MPs ignored warnings, choosing censorship then feigning surprise at arrests.

This isn't just top-down; psycho-social factors propel it. Gustave Le Bon's crowd psychology meets modern "social contagion," where fear spreads via media, hardening into censorship demands. Tragedies like Molly Russell's suicide, blamed on online content, birthed the Molly Rose Foundation, pushing OSA despite unintended burdens on adults.

Hannah Arendt's "collapse of moral common sense" resonates: Detached from reality, society justifies persecution. Post-COVID isolation and anxiety, per Mattias Desmet, foster authoritarianism. On X, users decry "woke agendas shredding rights," linking to Starmer's "two-tier" policing.

Britain's moral authority tatters: How can it lecture autocracies while throttling speech? The U.S. State Department highlighted UK's decline in 2025, noting arrests outpace Belarus and China. OSA's extraterritorial reach, fining U.S. tech firms, draws lawsuits and criticism from figures like Elon Musk.

Domestically, a societal split emerges: Deep-rooted liberty advocates versus superficial adherents favouring groupthink. X reflects this: Calls to repeal OSA, warnings of a "digital Eastern Bloc." One post: "We don't want the Online Safety Act to stay... we want it GONE."

Britain stands at a crossroads: Democracy or top-down control? Respond to Ofcom's consultation by October 20, 2025, focus on one question if needed. Watch barrister Steven Barrett's guidance on police encounters. Support groups like the Free Speech Union.

Humour persists: Dominic Frisby's "The Ofcom Song" mocks the absurdity. But laughter alone won't suffice. As Peter Sweden warns, "Free speech is gone in Britain... It's no longer a democratic and free country." Reclaim it before the strange death becomes final.

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/10/13/britains-free-speech-crisis-only-gets-worse/