Across the Atlantic: The state of free expression in the United Kingdom

Free speech in the UK remains firmly protected in law, but as communication increasingly takes place online, enforcement has expanded, and public scrutiny has grown. 

By Jamie O’Meara-Nash

In the UK, freedom of expression occupies a complicated place in public life. 

In 2023 alone, police forces across England and Wales recorded 12,183 arrests under specific communication offences (roughly 33 arrests a day).

This figure represents an increase of nearly 58% since 2019.

Of those cases, just over 1,100 individuals were sentenced. Many received fines or community orders rather than prison time. There is no single published figure detailing how many people are currently in custody solely for communication offences, and often sentences involve aggravating factors beyond the speech offence itself, such as actions taken on behalf of their views. 

On paper, the right to speak, publish, and debate freely is firmly embedded within domestic law through incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, in practice, a patchwork of criminal statutes (some dating back to pre-Internet times) has led to thousands of police interventions for a range of social media posts.

The result is a striking contrast with the near absolute protection of free speech under the US Constitution. 

Freedom of expression in the UK is protected primarily through Article 10 of the European Convention, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives domestic effect to the ECHR’s guarantees. It protects the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information “without interference by public authority.” 

However, it explicitly permits restrictions that are “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” for defined objectives such as national security, public safety and prevention of crimes and/or disorder. Article 10 contrasts with the First Amendment, where only a few narrow categories of speech fall outside of constitutional protection, e.g. real threats, incitement, etc.

This structural difference helps explain why American commentators often perceive UK free speech law as comparatively restrictive.

In the UK, hate speech laws and public order statutes co-exist with explicit safeguards: courts regularly emphasise that expression that merely “offends, shocks, or disturbs” in a non-gross manner remains under protection unless it crosses the threshold into genuine harm.

Therefore, prosecutors must consider necessity and proportionality to ensure interference with Article 10 rights before bringing communications offences to courts. 

The Online Safety Act 2023, parts of which came into force in 2024, introduced additional offences related to knowingly sending communications intended to cause serious harm, as well as strengthening regulatory duties for digital platforms, which in itself has faced dire backlash in recent months, but is not the main focus of this article.

The government stated the act was designed to address harms that expanded in scale through social media, whilst remaining compliant with human rights laws. 

The growing number of speech-related arrests has prompted debate amongst legal experts. The issue has increasingly become politicised, with some right-leaning commentators framing enforcement as evidence of creeping state overreach, while others argue that stronger regulation is necessary to address online harms.

Critics on both sides of the political aisle debate free speech, with some arguing it is fundamental to human rights regardless of belief, and others advocating restrictions when necessary to prevent hate crimes.

For policymakers, courts, and citizens, the central question remains: where should the line be drawn between free speech and preventing harm?