It’s not unfair to say that the current unrest and rioting in the UK has been accompanied by a lot of inaccurate information. As with any event, everyone should be aware that it becomes a lot easier to spread false information and have people believe it. Tensions are boiling over and emotions are running amok, and it does not take a genius to understand why you should be more wary of misinformation when emotion is in the driver’s seat.
Unfortunately, the #1 rule of government is to never let an emergency go to waste. The relationship between emergencies and the state is a symbiotic relationship. Supposed “emergencies” almost always lead to the growth of government and a creeping infringement on natural rights. Take the current events in the UK—the riots accompany a crackdown on an individual’s right to say what they wish on their property, free from punishment by the government or anyone else.
During the riots, misinformation has been used manipulatively, amid extremely volatile emotions, by people for their own ends. This has been very public, with the most prominent example being the claim that the Southport stabber was a Muslim named Ali Al-Shakati. This was entirely false, but it spread all over social media and angered the people that were looking for a reason to be violent.
The public nature of the misinformation, combined with the emergencies caused by the riots, has allowed the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, to threaten social media platforms, stating:
Let me also say to large social media companies, and those who run them, violent disorder clearly whipped up online: that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises, and the law must be upheld everywhere.
In the spirit of an assault on our natural right to free speech, Starmer announced that his government would be re-examining existing legislation related to regulation of social media, even threatening to bring back proposed legislation that was abandoned in 2022 due to its open assault on free speech. Starmer’s government has suggested measures that would remove “legal but harmful” content. At least Cicero had a somewhat clear political philosophy before he violated all his beliefs about the universality of law. Starmer has yet to flesh out his actual political philosophy but followed Cicero down the path of violating individual rights.
In 2012, Keir Starmer was the director of public prosecutions and he was for reforming a clause of the Public Order act that made insults a criminal offense, stating:
The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.
Many people who are ardent believers in two-tier policing may post a statement along the lines of, “Keir Starmer, you are a Muslim-sympathizer, and you just don’t care about the communities outside of the Islamic community.” Is this an insult or an incitement of hatred? It could be both, but Starmer’s lack of thought concerning basic political philosophy and ethics means that he can feel comfortable holding both positions, completely unaware that his actions are nonsensical and entirely inconsistent.
Your right to say what you want, post what you want, express the feelings that come from the deepest reaches of your being, does not come from the state, a document, or a politician. It comes from the undeniable fact that you are your own being—you own yourself and only you can exert any action you wish over the many appendages of your body. Only you can produce the thoughts that constitute reason from your brain. No one else is able to take control of your brain and make you think a certain way. Proponents of restrictions on man’s ability to reason through the tool of speech should admit that they do not believe they own themselves since that is the logical conclusion of their position. Admit that you do not own yourself and we can discuss the immense political power that comes from that logic. You will soon realize just how dangerous this position is to yourself, those you love, and everyone else under which your position is enforced.
Free speech does have consequences, but those do not and can never involve the violation of the immutable fact that you own your body. You cannot sentence someone to any criminal offense due to what they say. They have not violated anyone else’s right to property, which includes your body, thus, it is manifestly immoral to use the heavy iron hand of the state to punish them for it.
If you disagree or dislike what another person says, then challenge that view, converse and debate to come to the truth, and spread it as far as you can. Unfortunately, many prominent political commentators and politicians feel the need to say that your natural right to your ability to reason is, in fact, not absolute, but qualified.
The political figures should consider why there are so many people with “ghastly” views. Members of the establishment ponder why their arguments are not taken seriously, and mistakenly come to the conclusion that it must be due to the volatile state of human nature—some people are just idiotic plebs to them. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. The establishment spends decades lying to the public, manipulating emotions, and lambasting them for their lying eyes. After a lot of what our lying eyes have told us becomes true years later, not even one of these figures will admit their error. Perhaps this is why so many have views they despise enough to wish them arrested.
You should listen to those you oppose so you can better understand their worldview and get a measure of how much thought they have put into their positions. In this spirit, there have been some interesting takes on free speech. Keir Starmer’s government is suggesting removing “legal but harmful” speech. What is harmful? Hypothetically, if I state that the chancellor of the exchequer is a dull and bland orator who inspires very little confidence in anything and does not show any sign of truly understanding economics, is that harmful?
The chancellor may very well claim that her feelings have been hurt, that her reputation has been damaged, and thereby the great institution that is the treasury has been brought into disrepute, causing her ability to operate to be restricted by widely-perceived incompetence. If you have an establishment worldview, you probably believe that’s harmful. If I post it, should it be removed? The subjectivity implies inconsistent application of the law to target opinions that are uncouth. Think of the politician that you find the most duplicitous and hate the most, would you trust them with these powers? Remember, your guys won’t be in power forever.
Another take I’ve seen is this from a fairly prominent KC in the UK. She attempts to justify the crackdown on free speech by suggesting that because the British parliament is adopting it, not the government, that this is an expression of “the will of people.” It is critical to make readers aware that this justification shows how shallow her thought process is. She has put zero thought into how this justifies the worst possible attacks on an individual’s natural rights since, per her own logic, if the parliament adopts the legislation, then that’s democracy in action and, therefore, justified. There is nothing in her own logic that theoretically would prevent parliament from adopting legislation that takes away your right to have a trial that is based on only the available evidence, then this is justified as its “the will of the people.” She would probably oppose this, but if follows the same reasoning she uses to justify the restriction of speech.
We can add these events to the very long list of cases where governments exploit emergencies to expand their powers. Natural rights are inherent to every human being. Free speech plays a vital role to express why a society that wants to remain free should fight against forces that seek to diminish it. Those who argue that free speech is not absolute should think about this. Every dictatorship in the history of man started by suppressing speech because they knew that it helped shape their narrative and shut out opposing opinions from the mainstream. History is not binary, nations are not either fully free or totally authoritarian. Are you willing to take the risk of unleashing a power that could be dispensed by those you vehemently dislike? Man is fallible and politicians certainly aren’t altruistic, they all have their own agendas, so is there not an incentive to use this power to push their narrative? Questions to truly ponder and discuss before taking the leap.
