There are always limits to freedom of speech. Those limits vary depending on the traditions of different nations and legal systems and perhaps on political circumstances, too.
Back in 1919, the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes famously noted one limitation by arguing that no one has the freedom to yell out “fire” wrongly in a crowded theatre. It could lead to panic and potentially the loss of life. America’s First Amendment nevertheless is a landmark, saying that “Congress shall make no law …. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Yet, the Holmes analogy – qualifying when freedom of speech can be abused – has been relied upon in hundreds of American constitutional cases for obvious reasons.
In the UK, the sense of freedom of speech remains strong but – unlike the American habit of spelling things out in a written constitution – the British remain somewhat vague about what such freedom entails and where it must be limited.
That vagueness illuminates a bitter row right now about the treatment and sentencing of a convicted British criminal and her inflammatory tweets. The Lucy Connolly case touches on the political faultlines in the UK that have opened up over migration, race and legitimate – or inflammatory – political debate.
Connolly is a childminder from Northampton. Last year, a deranged young man stabbed three young girls to death at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport. This was one of the most appalling crimes anyone can imagine. On social media, rumours started that the killer was an asylum seeker. Connolly tweeted that she wanted “mass deportation now” and suggested setting fire “to all the [expletive] hotels full of the [expletive] for all I care … if that makes me a racist so be it”.
She then deleted the tweet a few hours later. Anti-migrant riots and other disturbances followed the killings and led to a police crackdown, with Connolly among those arrested. She was charged, pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred, then sentenced to 31 months in jail. This was a prison sentence longer than the sentences imposed on some of the rioters.
It is obviously possible to be appalled about Connolly’s inflammatory tweet and also to conclude that such a long jail sentence was very severe for the crime that she admitted. The Connolly case has, however, opened up not just a freedom of speech debate but also the idea among some on the right and far right of politics and in sections of the media that she is some kind of free speech martyr. She isn’t. Her tweet was nasty, inflammatory and part of a pattern. She had previously posted about people from Somalia along with a vomit emoji.
The Reform UK party leader, Nigel Farage, with his unerring sense of how to make news, is said to want to take Connolly to the US to appear before Congress. Presumably, this is to suggest that the UK has become some kind of anti-freedom of speech nation. It hasn’t. Nonetheless, the Connolly case is revelatory about the divisions in British society.
Opinion polls show Reform up to 28 per cent of the vote while the governing Labour party is at 20 per cent and the Conservatives and other parties trail behind those figures. Mr Farage is rarely out of the news. His genius is to point to real or not-so-real problems in British society and magnify them to his own advantage. Recently he’s been talking about deporting hundreds of thousands of irregular migrants to some unnamed foreign destination.
The rise of Reform, the Connolly case and the demonstrations at hotels used by migrants awaiting processing have led to a degree of panic in the Labour and Conservative parties. But perhaps, we all need to do that most difficult of tasks and to be calm and think.
August is known to British journalists as the “silly season”. Now in September, politics and journalism tend to return to more sober matters ahead of October’s party conferences. Second, Reform polling at 28 per cent may be a shock, but that means 72 per cent of British people are not planning to vote for Mr Farage. He’s loved by a significant group but loathed by many more. Third, a general election probably will not happen until 2029. The Farage genius in making news headlines, along with attempts to pretend that Connolly is a free speech martyr, will not solve Britain’s complex difficulties over migration.
As for the right to freedom of speech, since Mr Farage and his cohorts are on television and newspaper front pages more often than any other British political personality or party, we can probably agree that his views are far from being censored.
Mr Farage’s choice to defend someone who made inflammatory remarks about migration is, however, interesting. It’s not quite yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, but it may sound like agreeing with those who like to stoke the flames of fear.
