Free Speech Policy

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” – George Orwell

 

Statement of Intent

As the British Democratic Alliance establishes its membership and financial base, we will formalise our support for independent organisations that safeguard the foundations of a free society. This will include supporting and joining the Free Speech Union. A resilient democracy depends on the protection of open expression, dissent, and public criticism. These principles are not optional for us; they are central to our mission and will guide our conduct as a political movement.

The Free Speech Union supports and defends individuals whose freedom of expression is threatened by those who oppose open debate. We strongly encourage anyone who values free speech to consider becoming a member of the Free Speech Union. Toby Young explains the founding purpose of the FSU on their About Us page here.

 

Summary:
Free speech is a fundamental right, but it carries responsibilities. Every person has the right to think freely and to express their views without interference. However, no right permits the encouragement of violence, hatred, criminal activity, self-harm, the deliberate spread of false information, or the compromise of national security.
When individuals accept these responsibilities and act within them, their freedom of expression should never be restricted or controlled by any third party, regardless of position or authority.

 

Free speech is a foundational component of any democratic society. It enables individuals to challenge power, expose wrongdoing, advance knowledge, and engage in civic life without fear of retaliation. It is essential not only for personal liberty but for the continued health and resilience of democracy itself. While widely recognised in legal and moral philosophy (Singh, 2024; Howie, 2018; Zukić & Zukić, 2025), free speech is misunderstood, misapplied, and increasingly vulnerable to erosion by both state and non-state actors. A modern policy must therefore rest on clear principles, supported by academic research, and commit unequivocally to protecting expression while preventing measurable harm.

  1. What Free Speech Is

Free speech is the right to express thoughts, opinions, and information without censorship or intimidation. International law, constitutions, and democratic theory all emphasise its role in safeguarding individual autonomy, enabling democratic deliberation, and protecting minority voices (Goldman-Hasbun, 2022; Zukić & Zukić, 2025). It exists not to protect polite or popular speech, but specifically the uncomfortable, dissenting, inconvenient forms of expression through which societies refine truth and confront their own failings.

This right, however, carries responsibilities. Individuals and institutions must recognise the impact of their speech, and the potential for misuse. Ethical frameworks in journalism, philosophy, and civic theory all support the idea that free expression must be exercised with integrity and accountability (McIntyre et al., 2016).

  1. The Limits of Free Speech

Academic consensus is clear: free speech is fundamental, but not absolute. Its limits exist to prevent direct, objective harm—not to shield people from discomfort or disagreement. Restrictions are justified to prevent:

  • Incitement to violence or terrorism
  • Deliberate, targeted hate speech that threatens safety or civil order
  • Defamation
  • Threats to national security
  • Speech that encourages self-harm or criminal activity

(Singh, 2024; Parekh, 2017; Patel et al., 2022; Miklaszewska, 2019; Zhang, 2024).

The purpose of these limits, as argued by Reiff (2024) and others, is to preserve societal stability without compromising open debate. Liberal societies must tolerate differing views while restricting speech that directly violates the rights and safety of others (Parekh, 2017). The challenge is ensuring that such limits are precise, proportionate, and never politicised.

  1. Individual Responsibility

Individuals have wide freedom to debate, argue, criticise, mock, object, or advocate. This includes the right to offend, challenge cultural norms, and question authority—components widely recognised as central to democratic freedom (Goldman-Hasbun, 2022).
However, individuals remain responsible for:

  • Deliberate falsehoods that cause material harm
  • Inciting criminal or violent behaviour
  • Harassment or targeted abuse

(Zukić & Zukić, 2025; Zhang, 2024).

What individuals must not be held responsible for is causing offence. Offence is subjective, culturally variable, and easily weaponised as a tool of censorship. The BDA rejects any framework that treats emotional discomfort as evidence of societal harm.

  1. The Responsibility of the Media

The media, often described as the “fourth estate,” has a dual role: to inform the public truthfully and to hold power to account. Academic literature stresses that media outlets must act with integrity, accuracy, and a commitment to the public interest (McIntyre et al., 2016; Patel et al., 2022; Miklaszewska, 2019). Under democratic theory, media organisations must be free from state censorship while also being accountable for deliberate misinformation, sensationalism, and distortions of fact (Lee et al., 2014).

In this context, media freedom, while vital, is not a licence to manipulate public opinion or conduct “media trials” that undermine due process (Patel et al., 2022). Ethical journalism requires clear distinctions between fact and opinion, and a duty of care to ensure public understanding rather than public agitation.

  1. The Responsibility of the State and Government Over-Reach

This is the most critically underexplored aspect of free speech debates: the state itself must be held to the highest standard.

Most academic frameworks focus on individual and media responsibilities, but the state is the only actor with coercive power. It therefore carries the greatest responsibility.

  1. To communicate truthfully

Government must adhere to factual accuracy and avoid misleading statements. Academic literature on democratic trust consistently highlights the corrosive effect of state misinformation (Ivanova & Stepanov, 2019).

  1. To protect expression, not suppress it

The state must not use police, regulatory bodies, or informal pressure to silence lawful speech. Abuse of authority to enforce political conformity, whether through policing “offensive” comments or influencing platform moderation, undermines democracy at its core.

  1. To avoid censorship by proxy

Governments increasingly exert pressure on social media platforms or public institutions to remove inconvenient speech. This practice, widely discussed in modern free speech theory, constitutes an indirect violation of expressive rights (Patel et al., 2022).

  1. To prevent mission creep in policing

Security forces must focus on crime, not political expression. The BDA rejects the trend of policing “non-crime hate incidents,” social media disagreements, or posts that merely cause offence. Such actions distort policing priorities and chill legitimate speech.

The state must lead by example: a government that demands accuracy and civility from citizens must model those standards itself.

  1. The BDA’s Commitment

A BDA government will enact a statutory Free Speech Standard, baked into both the constitution and law, with the following principles:

  • Free speech is protected unless it directly and demonstrably causes harm.
  • Offence is subjective, it is not harm and must never be treated as such in law or policing.
  • The state must be transparent, truthful, and accountable in its own public communications.
  • Police involvement in lawful speech will be strictly limited by statute and must only bed to PROTECT IT.
  • Media organisations will maintain freedom from censorship while being accountable for deliberate misinformation.
  • Citizens, journalists, and whistleblowers must never face retaliation for exposing wrongdoing or criticising government.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a confident nation. A government that fears the voices of its citizens is unfit to lead them. A free people speak without fear; a strong state listens without intimidation.

References

  1. AlOmran, N., Al-Rai, A., & Alhendi, N. (2025). Freedom of expression and criminal liability for journalists under Jordanian legislation.
  2. Ivanova, X. & Stepanov, A. (2019). Restrictions of the freedom of speech in France in the digital technologies era.
  3. Lee, C. et al. (2014). Corporate social responsibility of the media.
  4. McIntyre, K. et al. (2016). The contextualist function: US newspaper journalists value social responsibility.
  5. Reiff, M. (2024). The liberal conception of free speech and its limits.
  6. Parekh, L. (2017). Limits of Free Speech.
  7. Singh, J. (2024). An Analysis on the Right to Freedom of Speech.
  8. Patel, P. et al. (2022). Why Free Speech?
  9. Miklaszewska, J. (2019). Freedom of Speech in Modern Political Culture.
  10. Howie, E. (2018). Protecting the human right to freedom of expression in international law.
  11. Zukić, M. & Zukić, A. (2025). Freedom of Speech and Expression.
  12. Zhang, E. (2024). Freedom of Expression and Censorship.
  13. Goldman-Hasbun, J. (2022). The Moral Discourse of Free Speech.
  14. Barendt, E. (1985). Freedom of Speech.
  15. (2020). Positive Free Speech.

© British Democratic Alliance 2025