Free-speech emergency: how can we fight back?

This debate is part of Battle of Ideas North 2026.

The trend towards bans and censorship of speech is now a routine aspect of political life. ‘You can’t say that’ and ‘Think before you post’ are normalised background injunctions against speaking freely. With new hate-speech regulations, more powers for the speech police in workplaces and heightened hysteria over social media, the battle for free speech is omnipresent – although contested – across a diverse range of issues. Why are the authorities so keen to curb speech and how can we oppose such trends?

On hate speech, high-profile campaigning does seem to have resulted in the demise of infamous non-crime hate incidents. But the ideology of subjectively defined hate crimes remains firmly embedded in the law and institutions. Labour’s proposed rebranding of Islamophobia as ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ will, according to Toby Young of the Free Speech Union (FSU), likely result in more prosecutions and more guilty verdicts for speech-related offences – even silencing Iranian dissidents who criticise mandatory veiling in Tehran.

In workplaces, it’s EDI diktats and public-sector equality duties that are often used to create a toxic atmosphere of grievance culture, identity politics and lawfare. An ever-expanding number of disciplinary codes has led to a 23 per cent rise in cases at employment tribunals, a two-year waiting list and almost half of the FSU’s cases (44 per cent).

For those working in higher education, even the much-heralded Higher Education (Free Speech) Act seems to be stalling. Recently, more than 370 academics – including three Nobel Prize winners – accused the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, of foot-dragging on implementing measures designed to tackle cancel culture on university campuses. But as opinion polls suggest that 35 per cent of undergraduates want to ban Reform politicians from campuses, is the battle over expression increasingly driven from the bottom up?

The now familiar tug-of-war between free speech and safeguarding is the predominant feature of restrictions on speech.

In schools, teachers have been disciplined, even sacked, for allegedly sharing political views that breach safeguarding rules. Last year, a teacher was sacked for telling Muslim pupils that ‘Britain is still a Christian state’ and another for showing videos of Donald Trump in an A-Level Politics class. Meanwhile, a visit by the Jewish MP Damien Egan was cancelled by a local school following objections from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the National Education Union. Is ‘safeguarding’ an excuse to police teachers or views that are not ideologically approved?

It is just months since the Online Safety Act came into effect – legislation that has already led to the censorship of articles critical of migration policies or quoting explicit details of the ordeals suffered by victims of the grooming gangs. Yet the government – with popular and cross-party support – now cites the need for more protective measures, with threats to ban social media for children under 16 or Elon Musk’s X because it’s AI Grok bot has been ‘undressing’ users.

Is the rush to restrict speech about a genuine desire to protect the young and citizens, or about reasserting control of the narrative? While real-life social tensions are evident, from failed integration and increasing radicalisation, will curtailing hate-speech create more social harmony or is this a means of governments sidestepping root causes and containing justified anger? Which frontiers will emerge as the next battlegrounds for free expression? Are there any red lines in speech that should not be crossed or is every restriction on what we say censorship?