Free speech is the bedrock of a free society—if we define a “free” society as one in which the people themselves are free to think, criticise, and debate with others of opposing views without the fear of facing ramifications for the positions and opinions they espouse. The issues around the nature of free speech is dominating political discourse, highlighted recently by the Oval Office interaction between JD Vance and Keir Starmer, in which Vance claimed to “know there have been infringements on free speech” in Britain; mirroring his criticism of the British Government at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused the government of implementing “renegade” free speech laws.

While Starmer retorted “we’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that”, the implication that free speech is under threat in Britain is an emotive one. When assessed in a bipartisan fashion, it is evident that freedom of speech is facing challenges, and what is meant by the term “free speech” is being subjected to heightened levels of scrutiny. Take, for instance, recent events unfolding in universities. One noteworthy example is the “From Conflict to Connection: Israelis & Iranians in Dialogue” event at King’s College London on the 27th of February. The event involved Faezeh Alavi, a PhD researcher of St Andrews University, and Miles Isaacs, president of the King’s Geopolitics Forum. After twenty-five minutes, pro-Palestinian activists began disrupting the lecture, with Alavi eventually being forced to leave the venue against a backdrop of chants of “free Palestine”.

The targeting of the lecture was predicated on the fact that Alavi is an outspoken critic of the barbarous Khamenei dictatorship in Iran, and was sharing a platform with an Israeli for the purpose of discussing peace. The fact that even an event such as this cannot proceed without being disrupted and abandoned is indicative of the problem facing universities. In the face of such regular occurrences, one may hope that the government’s Higher Education Act, which would require universities to establish a code of practice and policies to protect freedom of speech, may serve as a bulwark to such troublesome scenes reoccurring.

Away from universities, the nature of free speech is being continuously tested and probed, and the debate around what can be justified under free speech looks set to continue in perpetuity, particularly on the thorny topic of religion. This debate over the limitations and parameters of free speech is epitomised by the case of Martin Frost, who pled guilty last month to a public order offence after he streamed himself burning a copy of the Quran in Manchester. While it would not be bold to categorise the individual and the action as both reprehensible, it does raise questions over what exactly can be justified as an admissible act of freedom of expression, particularly as England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008. The legal disputes around the burning of holy books is not unique to Britain, as is highlighted by the case of Salwan Momika, who was murdered in January. Momika, an anti-Islam activist born in Iraq, staged a variety of protests in Sweden, and in 2023 sought permission to burn the Quran in front of Turkish and Iraqi embassies.

While permission was initially rejected, the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden overturned the decision, citing Momika’s “constitutionally protected freedoms of assembly”. The discrepancies in judicial attitudes of Sweden and Britain serve to highlight the moldability of free speech, and what can and cannot be an acceptable form of public protest. The overriding point is this: without a clear and codified set of parameters relating to freedom of speech, the more troublesome it proves to “defend” or be “attacked”—for without a clear definition, it is impossible to defend or consciously attack it. The time has come for our policymakers and politicians to make clear in law how fundamentalist Britain is to be when it comes to free speech.