In recent weeks, the United Kingdom has witnessed a surge in rioting and protests that has drawn global attention, not just for the unrest itself, but for the government's increasingly heavy-handed response. 

Following a tragic stabbing at a children's dance class that claimed the lives of three young girls, the government’s efforts to suppress public outcry has extended far beyond physical arrests. It is now targeting online speech and pushing for stronger laws to control the flow of information and opinions. Critics argue this approach is a dangerous step toward eroding free speech, with some labelling it ‘Orwellian’, as the government shows itself increasingly prepared to suppress and silence opinions that it disagrees with.

As part of its push to censor online activity, the government has urged Big Tech companies, particularly Elon Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter), to take stronger action against misinformation and hate speech. Elon Musk has so far refused, prompting the government to take on the role itself, with the director of public prosecutions warning the public that they “may be committing a crime if [they] repost, repeat or amplify a message which is false, threatening, or stirs up racial / religious hatred”.

The government's official twitter account directs the public to ‘think before you post’, reminding them that “content that incites violence or hatred isn’t just harmful – it can be illegal”.

The concern however is that the government will appoint itself the sole arbiter of acceptable speech as it increasingly tries to regulate ‘hate speech’.

However, as Tom Slater, editor of Spiked Online argues:

Hate speech is free speech. It’s why America, home of the First Amendment, has the sum total of zero hate-speech laws. Because it doesn’t matter how ugly, even dangerous, an opinion is, the state should not be empowered to clamp down on it. Allowing the government to define and police hate is a recipe for never ending restrictions on thought and speech”.

In a troubling shift towards overreach, the government is expanding its scrutiny to the private conversations of its citizens, turning once-protected spaces like the family home and dinner-table discussions into potential crime scenes under new hate speech laws.

“More alarmingly, the British state is increasingly taking an interest in things people say in private. There have been a few cases now in which people in England have been convicted for racist posts made in private WhatsApp groups. In Scotland, the great, sinister innovation of Humza Yousaf’s Hate Crime Act is that it forgoes the usual dwelling defence – a feature of existing hate-speech legislation that prohibits arrest over speech uttered in your own home. Now, any Scottish dinner-table chat could be a crime scene”.

Freedom of speech is “the lifeblood of democracy”, as writer Fred de Fossard argues. It allows for the exchange of ideas, even uncomfortable ones, and provides a mechanism for those ideas to be challenged, refined and rejected:

“...the way you challenge hatred is through more speech, more mobilisation, more debate – not less. Otherwise you never truly dispel and discredit these ideologies. You just make martyrs out of fascists. And you open the door to censorship of many more views, too.”

Unfortunately, the Australian government is likewise seeking to increase its regulation of online speech and content deemed 'harmful.' While its Misinformation and Disinformation Bill was shelved following public criticism, a review of the Online Safety Act 2021 is currently underway. The review seeks to expand the eSafety Commissioner’s powers to address ‘new and emerging harms’, and in particular to target hate speech, ‘pile-ons’ and deep fakes.

HRLA is representing Canadian activist Chris Elston (known online as "Billboard Chris") in his challenge to a direction from the eSafety Commissioner to remove a tweet criticising the appointment of an Australian transgender activist to a panel creating guidelines for trans and non-binary people.

Mr Elston is arguing that “this form of state-imposed censorship is entirely illiberal and undemocratic” and that “Australians have a right to openly discuss the serious issues impacting our children today”.

The direction to Mr Elston was made by the eSafety Commissioner under existing powers; it is concerning that the government is seeking to expand and strengthen these already far-reaching powers.