Recent implementation of legislation concerning the right to freedom of speech has been heavily criticised by political commentators as anyone sending “grossly offensive” or “indecent” messages online could be penalised using the ‘Communications Act’ (2003). This has the profound consequence of limiting a person’s right to express themselves to a broad and subjective concept of offence. As suggested by a recent Bagehot article entitled ‘Mind your manners (or go to jail)' (The Economist, 2022): “it is, in effect, illegal to be rude on the internet.”

This development greatly disturbs me. In fact, who gets to decide exactly what is and isn’t offensive speech?

I am of quite the opposite view to that of prosecutors; I feel that the risk of potentially offending someone is precisely the foundation upon which fruitful, democratic discussion is able to thrive. The Oxford Union put it best in the article ‘Invite and Insult' (The Economist, 2007), in which they suggested that “free speech… is like a muscle which needs to be exercised to remain useful; the extremes of its terrain must be staked out to stop it shrinking”. I very much agree with such a sentiment as the risk of offence can act as a useful tool to expose extremism and scrutinise radical points of view. Indeed, potentially offending someone may be an inconsequential price to pay for the pursuit of exposing ignorance and promoting a greater diversity of opinion.

Britain’s legislation surrounding the right to the freedom of speech is already subject to limitations under the Human Rights Act (1998) which some commentators may point to as a justification for the criminalisation of offensive speech. Liberty, the human rights organisation, identifies the requirement for such limits as they suggest that “criminalising the incitement of violence or threats can be seen as a justifiable limit on freedom of expression” but that it is controversial to criminalise “language (or behaviour) which may be unpleasant, may cause offence but which is not inciting violence, criminality, etc” (Hate speech vs free speech: The UK laws, 2020).

I sympathise with such a nuanced line of thought; the UK already has limitations for speech, but these shouldn’t necessarily be overstepped for risk of encroachment on the right to free expression in the name of preventing offence.

The British government’s attempts to extend such limits on freedom of speech and expression can also be found in its recent legal redefinition of extremism. In an article in The New York Times, the chief executive of Amnesty International, a human rights organisation, declared that this new definition is a “dangerously sweeping approach to labelling groups and individuals as extremist” (Britain issues a definition of extremism, raising concerns on freedom of speech, The New York Times, 2024). The definition, therefore, could have the unfortunate effect of curbing free speech for individuals and groups if the government believes them to fall under the broad definition of ‘extremist’ regardless of whether or not they’ve incited crime or violence.

It's subtle actions like this redefinition of extremism that prompt political commentators like those at The Economist to suggest that “when laws are too broad, too many people end up on the rope” (Mind your manners (or go to jail) The Economist, 2022). I tend to approve of such a reaction; wistfully labelling opinions as offensive or extreme can only serve to further limit the freedoms afforded to the public instead of promoting productive discourse.

Indeed, even the police seem to be aware that limiting free speech shouldn’t be a priority for legislatures as Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, stated in an interview with the BBC: “We have specific statutes and offences, we don’t have those in relation to gender-related crime or misogyny and, in my view, we should be focusing on the things that the public tell me they care about most” (Hate speech vs free speech: The UK laws, 2020). This goes to show that limits to freedom of speech in the name of preventing offence is simply not worth penalising legally when there isn’t a clear public desire to do so.

So yes, perhaps freedom of speech is a ‘licence to offend’ but is that really such a bad thing when the alternative is no freedom at all?