US to UK: Ditch ‘Hate Speech’ Laws or No Deal? – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

Washington and London are currently negotiating a tariff agreement. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump wants the U.K. government to repeal hate speech laws in order to secure a trade deal between the two nations, the Independent reported last Wednesday, citing claims by sources close to Vice President JD Vance.

In a recent interview, Vance spoke of his admiration for the U.K. and expressed optimism about the negotiations. Good chance of agreement, says JD Vance — but supporters say his concerns over Britain’s hate speech laws “are still a red line.” However, the sources reportedly claimed to the Independent that Vance’s optimism on a trade deal “is a way of putting further pressure on the U.K. over free speech.” Sir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, a Washington source has told The Independent.

The U.K.’s hate speech laws have led to a significant number of arrests. In 2023, U.K. police detained over 12,000 people — approximately 33 per day — for online messages deemed offensive or distressing under the legislation, according to The Times. (RELATED: Of Rings and Torches: From Hellmarsh With Love Ep. 1

Critics among civil liberties groups argue that these laws are vague and infringe on free speech. Mr. Vance’s recent speech to the politically conservative Heritage Foundation think tank was cited as an example of his views on Western culture and free speech being linked to securing an agreement. “No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that,” the Washington source said.

The U.K. has been spared the worst of the massive wave of levies imposed by Trump earlier this month. The country faces a 10 percent tariff on all goods and a 25 percent tariff on steel, aluminum, and automotive imports. It is understood that Britain has already offered to drop its proposed digital services tax as a means of getting a trade deal through. But the U.S. wants to see laws on hate speech repealed, as well as plans for a new online safety law dropped. These two issues seem to be the main sticking points from the White House’s perspective.

The issues between the U.S. and the U.K. have a history. Starmer visited the White House for the first time since Mr. Trump took power and clashed with Mr. Vance in front of the TV cameras in the Oval Office. The vice president claimed that free speech was being undermined in the U.K. and that laws being brought in for online safety were an attack on U.S. tech giants.

Most recently, the trial of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce for silently praying outside an abortion clinic has become another cause célèbre in the U.S., with Mr. Vance criticizing the U.K. legal system over the case.

So, where do U.K. courts stand on the issue of free speech versus hate speech?

What Is the UK Law on Free speech?

Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the U.K. But the law states that this freedom may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.

What Counts as ‘Hate Speech’?

A number of different U.K. laws outlaw hate speech. Among them is Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offense for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress.” This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred,” as well as “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation,” and language that “encourages terrorism.”

The Terrorism Act 2006 criminalizes “encouragement of terrorism,” which includes making statements that glorify terrorist acts.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it illegal to send a message via a public electronic communications network that is considered grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character.

“This offence is incredibly broad and has been used to address jovial, albeit misjudged communications — it carries huge implications for freedom of expression,” says the justice and freedom campaign group Liberty.

Why the Controversy?

Criminalizing the incitement of violence or threats “can be seen to be a justifiable limit on freedom of expression,” says Liberty. What is controversial “is the criminalization of language (or behavior) which may be unpleasant, may cause offence but which is not inciting violence, criminality, etc,” the organization adds.

Writing for Prospect magazine, Hugh Tomlinson QC argues that the problem lies with the lack of a U.K. constitution. “Free speech does not, historically, have the same primacy under English law [as the U.S.],” he explains.

“A proper ‘written’ constitution sets limits on the powers of the institutions of government, but the loose and flexible set of rules that is described as Britain’s unwritten constitution sets no such limits.”

Writing in The Spectator, critic Lionel Shriver says the U.K. should follow the U.S. lead.

“Because the alternative is what the U.K. has now, and it will only get worse: government systematically legislating not just what we say but what we may believe.”

READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolfe Jr.:

Trump and Zelensky — Is There a Way Back?

Fascism Is a Progressive Tendency — Not a Trump One