When hundreds of thousands of Britons joined the recent Unite the Kingdom rally, the government of Keir Starmer wanted them to know that they were being watched for possible arrest. By deploying facial recognition systems and invoking the United Kingdom’s anti-free speech laws, Starmer’s government made it clear that it would not tolerate anything it considered hateful or xenophobic, on the heels of its losses to Reform UK in council elections.
Under its Online Safety Act, the government removed posts from social media platforms such as TikTok, including statements about Reform UK’s immigration policies.
Among those impacted was Reform UK’s shadow home secretary Zia Yusuf who reportedly had “two videos removed from TikTok—one for a user report under the UK’s Online Safety Act and another for hate speech.” They were later restored.
Starmer’s government also reportedly prevented speakers from the rally from entering the county, citing concerns they might “incite” the crowd.
The Times reported last year that the government was arresting 30 people a day for speech crimes.
In the last two decades, free speech protections in the U.K. have been eviscerated. The criminalization of speech has expanded exponentially as individuals and groups call the police to silence those who criticize them or advocate opposing views.
Even silent prayer or “toxic ideologies” can lead to arrest. Expressing concerns over Western cultural values is now treated as an admission of “right-wing ideology,” warranting investigation. A few years ago, a neo-Nazi living with his mother was found to have a room filled with hateful symbols and material.
Judge Peter Lodder dismissed free speech concerns over the defendant’s possessions with a truly Orwellian flourish: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.” Calling the defendant “a right-wing extremist,” Mr. Lodder said the contents of his room were evidence of “enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology.”
One of the most notorious cases has been dropped with a belated apology. Last year, I wrote about how Graham Linehan became the latest comedian to be arrested as part of the global crackdown on free speech.
The co-creator of the U.K. sitcom “Father Ted” was arrested at London Heathrow Airport, allegedly over several social media posts criticizing transgender activists. The posts were not jokes, but political commentary.
Now, the Metropolitan Police has issued an apology that he should not have been detained by five armed officers at Heathrow Airport in September 2025. It took five months, but the Met Police apologized for how his case was handled and vowed to learn from the experience.
Met Police Inspector Matt Hume declared, “I apologize to Mr. Linehan for the shortcomings in this investigation. The Met Police remains committed to lawful, proportionate policing and to learning from failings when they arise. I accept that the service provided was not acceptable and recognize the distress and impact this matter has caused Mr. Linehan.”
The problem is that it is not clear why they concluded that they made a mistake but the laws are so sweeping in their language that the police can act in the most arbitrary and ideological fashion.
There will be no discipline of those who ordered the arrest, or apparently, further explanation of why this case, as opposed to hundreds of others, was viewed as improper.
The most that Hume would offer is that, while insisting that the arrest was entirely lawful, it was “flawed” because officers focused on the transgender criticism “rather than the alleged incitement to violence,” according to The Telegraph.
Linehan correctly noted in a post to X that “This, from the ‘apology’ I received from the police, doesn’t sound like an apology.” That is because it is not a real apology. It is an effort to spin and discard a high-profile controversy while reaffirming the very policies and laws that allow for such abuses to occur in the United Kingdom.
When I read Professor Turley’s commentaries about the state of free speech in some European countries, an animated sketch flashes in my mind. There was a cartoon my son liked, maybe 35 years ago, called Rocko’s Modern Life. He would laugh hysterically at a scene I amazingly found online today.
From Grok: Rocko drives up and sees a sign that says “Don’t even think about parking here.” He starts thinking about parking there anyway, and a beaver cop immediately pops out and tickets him for it (“Gotcha!”). Rocko tries to deny it by saying he was thinking about something else, but it doesn’t work.
Given what is going on in some Western countries, I’m not certain it’s still funny. Maybe funny, like Babylon Bee is funny.
“By deploying facial recognition systems and invoking the United Kingdom’s anti-free speech laws, Starmer’s government made it clear that it would not tolerate anything it considered hateful or xenophobic.”
Anybody that has read enough of your articles knows that your definition of “free speech” means “any speech that pleases me”, and your definition of “anti-free speech” is “any laws against speech that pleases me, even if that speech has the potential to incite violence, because my pleasure is far, far more important than the life or safety of anybody else”. For your information, unlimited enjoyment of your verbal abuse (or written abuse) of other people, on the grounds that you derive a lot of enjoyment from it, is not a position in anything that resembles a moral compass.
Your lie:
“[Y]our definition of ‘free speech’ means ‘any speech that pleases me’ . . .”
One example of the truth:
James Comey “has a right to write out any hateful thoughts that come to him on his walks on the beach.” (JT)
First you lie. Then you smear as a base emotionalist a principled defender of free speech. Then you have the effrontery to accuse JT of lacking a moral compass.
A triplet of evils in one comment. Well done.
Says the person exercising her free speech against Turley, when there are a zillion other pages she could view instead. Guess she derives enjoyment from that which she accuses others.
Turley– “The problem is that it is not clear why they concluded that they made a mistake but the laws are so sweeping in their language that the police can act in the most arbitrary and ideological fashion.”
The ‘mistake’ they made but don’t want to explain was that they picked on someone who can shine a light on those cockroaches and embarrass the fascist government.
Suppressing free speech is hateful and xenophobic.
Modern England has wonderful great people and America’s best friend, but maybe stop moving in the direction of 18th Century King George. His actions in the 1700’s violated England’s own English Bill of the Rights, the Magna Carta and started the American Revolutionary War. Not only violating American law, but violating England’s 18th Century laws governing monarchs.
Modern England should also respect the warnings of Englishman George Orwell who wrote the book “1984” and “Animal Farm”. Orwell was warning England and the rest of the world about the dangers of communist style totalitarian, warrantless arbitrary search & seizure and censorship.
In the 20th and 21st Centuries, the USA has essentially adopted the 18th Century English “General Warrants” tyranny, with severe abuses of 4th Amendment law (ie: immigration and border practices).
Nuremberg prosecutor – Robert Jackson – that prosecuted and executed Nazi war criminals after World War Two viewed “warrantless arbitrary searches” as essentially the gateway to tyranny. Once a government official can nose into your personal affairs (not supervised by a judge and not based on evidence), that official will ultimately abuse that arbitrary authority and ultimately harm the target of surveillance and searches.
Modern England should stay great and learn the lessons of England’s own history! Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court might start leading by example also since their Oath of Office makes it their duty.
What BS