The House Judiciary Committee’s Hearing with UK MP Nigel Farage

REFUTING THE RATIONALE BEHIND LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH
So, when you observe discussions on limitations of free speech, you would have noted that what is often contentious is the allowance of speech that is deemed to be mis or dis information or even hateful. And so, those in support of placing limitations on free speech, often argue that the danger from these categories of speech (being misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech) is so great that it becomes justifiable to place limitations on or even completely censor persons that curate such speech – be it by word or writing.
Let’s start with mis and disinformation. In socio-political discourse, the word “misinformation” is a dangerous word because it cannot be objectively defined; meaning that it means different things to different people. For instance, governments often label speech as mis or disinformation when that particular speech communicates a message that is contrary to official messaging. But, the government is not immune to error: governments or official organisations get things wrong or lack knowledge to communicate accurate facts quite often – an example being the WHO’s directives during COVID, which were parroted by some governments and the mainstream media.
Secondly, in addition to mis and disinformation lacking an objective definition, this vague quality of these words thus allows governments to assume the role of being the arbiter of truth; which – as empirical evidence from the last 4 and half years would show – tends to embolden governments to assume a monopoly on truth, and punish those who become dissenters. And they actually capitalise on the vagueness of the definition of mis and disinformation to accomplish this. For instance, Dr Mike Ryan, who is the Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, said something quite striking a few years back. He stated that misinformation is when grossly incorrect information gets out while being promoted as correct, or purposely designed to be incorrect… and also used as a weapon to manipulate how people make conclusions. And he said this in trying to clarify that the WHO is fighting misinformation and not overall dialogue and the asking of questions.
First, this is a lie. When governments and organisations like the WHO (and even the WEF) assume a monopoly on truth, they expect (in fact DEMAND) compliance, and therefore punish those who dissent. This is literally why the censorship industrial complex exists, and why laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act exist. Secondly, because of the (often) legislated demand for compliance, people have a hard time having genuine discourse or asking pertinent questions, when they know that could land them in trouble – and so, the compliance laws systematically nudge society towards self censorship. Therefore, this all details the fundamental flaw in the rationale behind limiting free speech that is considered mis or disinformation: and the fundamental flaw lies with the fact that there is no objective definition of these terms, and where they are defined, they are often heavily politicised to mean what a respective government or organisation demands, and also these politicised definitions enable the curation of censorship-promoting compliance laws.
WHAT (ACTUALLY) IS HATE SPEECH?
Which then brings us to hate speech, and why the rationale behind limiting speech that is deemed hateful is also flawed. And the first consideration is that (as alluded to earlier) the definition for what is deemed hate speech is not as clear as people assume it is. For instance, let’s consider these three definitions from a relatively quick search. The first is from the Oxford dictionary, and it states that hate speech is (quote): “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”
Then the second definition is from the UN. It states that hate speech is from (quote): “hate speech is “discriminatory” (in parenthesis) (biased, bigoted or intolerant) or “pejorative” (in parenthesis) (prejudiced, contemptuous or demeaning) of an individual or group. Then finally, we have the definition from the South African Human Rights Commission, and it states that (quote): “Hate speech may be defined as expression which goes beyond mere insults or offensive language, and which may infringe the dignity of certain persons or groups”. Now these all sound like fairly reasonable definitions, with discernable common denominators – being: discrimination, contempt or an infringement of dignity, and perhaps abuse – or simply, offence.
But, I do not think that all these different organisations considered that the application of these definitions is relative to each unique context where allegations of hate speech might arise.
For instance, the word “kaffir” (which is an Arabic word) is said to originate from the Quran and refers to a “disbeliever” or someone who rejects faith in Islam and its core tenets. In the colonial context, this word was used by the Boer in South Africa as a derogatory way to refer to black South Africans during apartheid. Today, this word is sometimes casually used by black South Africans in references that are informed by the apartheid and colonial context, but that aren’t deemed hateful. For instance, instead of referring to one’s hair as an afro or natural hair, one would say “my kaffir haar” – and no one will bat an eyelid.
Similarly, the “b” word that means a female dog is deemed derogatory and vulgar when used by men in reference to women, but it frequents informal and amicable conversations among both men and women, rap music and other forms of popular culture. The same can be said about the word Nigger in the American or African context. Now, I mention this to demonstrate that offence (which is what hate speech is hinged on) is very subjective; in fact, even how words receive compounded meanings beyond what they originally mean is often a product of the subjective intentions of one group, seeing that (for example) the original meaning of the word Nigger had nothing to do with the discriminatory connotations that were later added to it. And so, what is deemed to be hate speech will often differ not just for each group in society but for each individual within a certain group! And all of this is because offense is a highly subjective metric, which then makes it very problematic to use it to inform the law – because it would mean that the government is creating a law that is intended for general application, on the basis of the offence of a select few individuals or possibly even one person. Well, this came up at the hearing, including from Representative Mark Harris.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BODY TO DEFINE WHAT IS HATE SPEECH
The second argument I’d like to put forward is that – in addition to the lack of objective definition of hate speech – the government should also not be the body to define hate speech. And the reason fundamentally lies with two considerations: first, because slavery, the holocaust and apartheid were all legal systems, it means the state should never be used as a metric for ethics. In other words, history testifies to the fact that the government does not have an unequivocal grasp on good morality, because governments are made up of people who are not immune to error and who can be influenced towards evil deeds.
The second consideration is the fact that government definitions are (again) heavily politicised. And so, if we allow a government to define free speech and enforce that definition, it will likely amount to a means of restricting speech that the government in question does not like or agree with. But, that speech in-of-in itself may not actually amount to hate, in a manner that would be objective enough to warrant general application. And this actually presents considerable problems for the state because implementing subjective definitions of hate speech is hard work!
For example, in 2021, a former police officer in the UK won a court of appeal challenge over police guidance on hate incidents after claiming it unlawfully interferes with the right to freedom of expression. Ex-officer Harry Miller, who describes himself as “gender critical”, was visited at work by an officer from Humberside police in January 2019 after a single member of the public complained about his allegedly transphobic tweets. The force recorded the complaint as a non-crime hate incident (which we’ll discuss shortly), and this non-crime hate incident is defined by the College of Policing’s guidance as “any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”.
Well, ex-officer Harry Miller, from Lincolnshire, challenged both Humberside police’s actions and the College of Policing’s guidance at the high court and, in February 2020, a judge ruled the force’s actions were a “disproportionate interference” with his right to freedom of expression. But his challenge to the College of Police’s guidance was dismissed, with the judge finding that it “serves legitimate purposes and is not disproportionate”. However, in a ruling in 2020, the court of appeal then found that the College of Policing’s guidance also breached his freedom of expression rights.
So, this proves that a law that tried to allow the state to enforce one person’s subjective feeling of offence as a law of general application did not stand successfully against the inalienable freedom to speak freely. And so, even from a state perspective, this is a ridiculous approach to try to enforce.
HATE SPEECH IS (AND SHOULD TREATED AS) PROTECTED SPEECH
Then, finally, even if it was easy and non-subjective to define hate speech, hate speech should not only be regarded as protected speech, but the protection of hate speech is a part of the litmus test for whether a society truly values free speech. And the litmus test is: do you support the protection of fundamental freedoms for everyone, including for people you disagree with? If you do NOT, you are NOT someone who should be trusted with legislating on matters pertaining to free speech, because you have a segregationist mindset that sees society and politics as zero-sum.
But, secondly, it means you fail to grasp the inalienable nature of the freedom of speech. But, the truth is that inalienable rights have a high regard in society and jurisprudence because these are  God-given rights and freedoms, and thus not subject to statutory limitations or conditional application by governments, which is to say that even governments are bound by those rights. Therefore, because free speech is an inalienable right, even speech that is deemed subjectively hateful should be regarded as protected speech. As such, is there arises a personal injury or defamation issue, let it be addressed as such, where people make their case in court, as opposed to the government opting to censor people in defence of the claimed offence of another.
And finally, can we consider for a moment that the world is filled with people who have a reason to be offensive to others. Therefore, if you allow people to have power over how you see yourself, or even over your emotions, by allowing them the ability to offend you, then you might be part of the problem (seeing that offence is – afterall – subjective); and this is because you essentially delegated the power to offend you to those people. Whose speech you found offensive. They are responsible for what they say, and you are responsible for how you respond. I mean the Lord Jesus was told he performed miracles through the enablement of the devil, accused of blaspheming God, and more – and yet, He did not take offence from the persecution he suffered, and still died for all (including those who killed Him) to receive salvation.  Therefore, offense is a problem that primarily originates and lies with the person who is offended.
WHY DOES THE UK HAVE A FREE SPEECH PROBLEM?
So, now that we’ve undressed the flaw behind the rationale behind restrictions on free speech, let’s deal with the question behind Nigel Farage’s hearing in the US, which is: Why does the UK have a free speech problem. If we are being fundamentalist in our approach, I would argue that the origins of this problem can be articulated in considering the fact that the US has something the UK doesn’t have, namely a First Amendment. Of course, we know that there are those who wish the US didn’t have it either, including the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, because they see the First Amendment (and in particular, its extensive protections of free speech) as obstructive to his plans. BUT, not only does the UK not have a First Amendment, it doesn’t have a constitution either, and that makes for a significant concern, especially at a time when free speech has little currency with Gen Z and even less with the new UK Labour government – so much so that many are saying the UK has become a police state.
Furthermore, in the United Kingdom censorship has been applied to various forms of expression such as the media, cinema, entertainment venues, literature, theatre and criticism of the monarchy. And while there is no general right to free speech in the UK, British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law, and since 1998, freedom of expression is guaranteed according to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through the Human Rights Act.
Then, current law also allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications; and more. And so, there is a more clearly defined and long list of speech that is probematised in the UK, than there is comprehensive law that protects the freedom to speak freely.
This is a problem for two reasons: first, free speech is an inalienable right, which not only means that it is absolute and not in the purview of any government to limit or take away, but also means that it should be well protected in legislation. Secondly, this attitude of focusing more on speech that the government problematises ignores crucial historical context, which is that atrocities were often committed by governments who undermined or took away essential freedoms like the freedom to speak freely, and not people who had too much freedom. Therefore, the jurisprudence of any nation with an accurate understanding of history should highlight free speech as a protectionist right, that serves to prevent against government abuses of power and citizens. But, here’s more on the UK not having a written constitution, and not having explicit legal protections for free speech.
What Austen Morgan is essentially advocating for is that the UK considers becoming a constitutional republic; and for clarity, a nation is considered a constitutional republic if: (1) It has a constitution that limits the government’s power; and (2) the citizens choose their own heads of state and other governmental officials. If you’ve followed one of our programmes here on LN24 International, called ‘Starting Point’, you’d recall a discussion we had on Constitutional Republicanism, even going on to distinguish it from democracy. And the essence is that constitutional republicanism, establishes a law of the land in the constitution that is meant to establish the rights of citizens and the powers of the government, in a manner aimed at preventing against abuses of power from government branches, and also preventing against the tyranny of the majority – which is what democracy tends to produce.
And Austen Morgan is certainly right – what an explicitly written constitution would accomplish is giving Britons constitutionally enshrined rights (which would encourage more protections of those rights, when people know their scope), while also providing a means of curbing the wrong interpretations of activist judges, whose own interpretations of the law become part of the problem. But, here is more on the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic, in the context of the US, which is where this discussion has been prevalent.
NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS AND THE CASE OF ALISON PEARSON
Let’s proceed to discuss non crime hate incidents (as flag earlier), along with the case of Alison Pearson, who had the police knocking on her door this Remembrance Sunday. They had come to warn her they were investigating a tweet she had posted a whole year ago which someone had complained about. They were investigating whether it constituted a Non-Crime Hate Incident or NCHI. And yes, police are sanctioned to respond to a ‘non-crime’ hate incident, which is nothing short of intimidation and coercion towards silence; because if it is decidedly not a crime, despite potentially being hateful, then why are POLICE addressing it?
Secondly, even the definition of hateful speech is incredibly subjective and highly influenced by context. For instance, the “N” word is generally regarded as a hateful and derogatory term, however, some African Americans claim to have appropriated it and use it among themselves in a lighter meaning that is meant to invoke some comradery. However, there are also those who would argue that appropriation of a derogatory word does not erase its original meaning, and that, therefore, its use by those it was meant to oppress only serves as a continuation of its racist or colonial intention, except that those it was meant to oppress choose to think it does not carry the derogatory meaning. And I tend to agree with this latter view, because words carry definite meaning; and just because you appropriate the word to mean something else, does not change its intended meaning. I make the same argument about words like “man” or “woman”, with respect to the trans agenda.
But, I say all of this to say that despite my perceptions of the use of the “N” word, some people do not deem it hateful, and others do. Similarly, years ago, it was not potentially hateful to call a biological man a man, but today it’s a non-crime hate offence in the UK and other countries. And this is where it becomes obvious that the UK has become a police state: the government allows itself to define what is hateful, and further allows itself to allocate offence to certain speech – enough to then unleash police on citizens who say what the government does not want them to say – this is nothing short of autocracy!
ALISON PEARSON’S CASE AND THE PROBLEMS WITH ‘NON-CRIME HATE INCIDENTS’
What is worse is that this means that, in the UK, you can get a police record for something you posted on X that someone else didn’t like – when you haven’t even committed a crime! NCHIs are essentially a way they have of getting around the law in the same way John Kerry would like to get around the First Amendment, except it’s already being done in the UK!
But, Alison Pearson’s case further exposes the Problems with the Non-Crime Hate Incidents, and we ought to look at her case further. For some context, Alison Pearson is a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, but that certainly does not mean she can write what she likes – especially as a reporter, who should have journalistic integrity and credibility – and so she tried to ascertain what the problem tweet was. But, when she asked the police what the tweet that led to them investigating her was, she was told they couldn’t tell her that. When she asked who the complainant was, they said they couldn’t tell her that either. They added that she shouldn’t call them a complainant, they were officially the victim (which is just wild: it is the equivalent of saying an accused is guilty before a trial). BUT.. that’s what due process is like when you don’t have a First Amendment or a constitution! Victims of NCHI in the UK are decided without a trial or a defence.
Now, of course, there has been a public ruckus over this particular case, but the police are unapologetic and have doubled down. Stung into action by unwanted publicity, they are now saying they have raised the matter from an NCHI to an actual crime investigation. Which means they think she can be arrested and put in prison for expressing her opinion on X. And of course they are right. In the UK that’s where we are right now. Pearson tried to point out the irony of two police officers turning up on her door to complain about her free speech on Remembrance Day of all days, when we recall the thousands who died to keep this a free country, but irony is lost on those who have no memory of what totalitarianism means.
EVEN MORE CONCERNING is that these police are sanctioned or enabled by a government that should be protecting its people! However, instead, in a woke culture with explicitly (and sometimes perpetually) defined victims, governments will tip toe around people committing crimes, in the name of not offending the political minority – especially considering that a lot of these developments in the UK are tied to the Southport case, which involves an immigrant teenager accused of killing three girls and attempting to murder 10 others in a knife attack at a dance class.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso