Free Speech Lawyers
Free speech and controversial topics: The risks of expressing unpopular opinions
- Details
- Hits: 436
Is free speech disappearing?
These days, it feels like free speech is under pressure from all sides. Whether it’s online debates, protests, or heated arguments in the media, people are increasingly finding themselves targeted just for expressing a view. In some cases, it leads to online abuse or reputational damage. In others, it can result in legal action.
Free speech and the law in the UK
When free speech and the law collide: the Paisley vs. Linehan case
Online defamation: the Aaronson vs. Stones case
Protecting your reputation and honour: the Charlie Mullins case
The right to speak: Melanie Brown vs. Stephen Belafonte
Keir Starmer’s 2013 CPS guidance vs. 2023 practice
Free speech or defamation? Knowing the difference
What you can do to stay on the right side of the law
Free speech and the law in the UK
In the UK, we do have legal protections for free speech—but it’s important to know this right isn’t unlimited. The law allows you to express your opinions, but there are boundaries. Step over the line, even unintentionally, and you might find yourself facing legal consequences. So, where exactly is the line? Would you know if you were about to cross it? Let’s explore how the law approaches free speech—especially when the topic is sensitive or controversial.
Your right to free speech in the UK is protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which reflects the European Convention on Human Rights. This means you’re free to hold opinions and express them without interference from the state. It’s what we call a qualified right: it can be restricted when necessary, especially to protect things like public safety, national security, or someone else’s reputation.
UK laws such as the Defamation Act 2013, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, and the Public Order Act 1986 help set the legal boundaries. More recently, the Online Safety Act 2023 added another layer, requiring social media platforms to limit harmful or illegal content while still allowing lawful expression.
When free speech and the law collide: the Paisley vs. Linehan case
One high-profile example of this tension is the dispute between our client, David Paisley and Graham Linehan. Their conflict played out online and centred on gender identity—an area where views can be deeply divided. Linehan’s outspoken gender-critical views led to accusations of harassment. Paisley, on the other hand, claimed his right to be protected from that kind of behaviour.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence to cause someone alarm or distress through repeated actions. But the courts also have to weigh up the wider public interest, particularly when the discussion involves political or social matters. Cases like this show how tricky it can be to balance one person’s right to speak freely with another’s right not to be harassed.
Online defamation: the Aaronson vs. Stones case
Another case that made waves in the legal world was the dispute between our client Jack Aaronson (also known as Dominic Ford) and Marcus Stones (aka Mickey Taylor). This one focused on online defamation—allegations posted on social media that caused serious reputational harm. Under the Defamation Act 2013, individuals can take legal action if someone makes false and damaging statements about them.
But there are defences available. If the statement is true, for example, or clearly presented as an honest opinion based on facts, the defendant may be protected. The Aaronson case reminds us just how quickly things can spiral online. A single post can cause lasting damage, and if you can’t back up what you’ve said, you could be held liable.
Protecting your reputation and honour: the Charlie Mullins case
Our firm also represented Charlie Mullins OBE in a high-stakes legal matter concerning the potential forfeiture of his OBE. The situation arose from a defamation campaign against him which, if left unchallenged, might have damaged both his reputation and his standing with the Honours Forfeiture Committee.
We successfully argued that the allegations made were unfounded and served only to smear his character. Free speech was central here—not the freedom of Mullins’ critics to spread harmful accusations, but Mullins' right to defend his name and respond without being silenced. This case highlights how the misuse of speech can cause real harm, and why legal remedies must be available to those on the receiving end.
The right to speak: Melanie Brown vs. Stephen Belafonte
Another recent case involved our client Stephen Belafonte and his ex-wife Melanie Brown (Mel B). Belafonte approached our firm after an article detailing his version of events was met with attempts by Brown to prevent its publication. Her efforts to block the article could have restricted Belafonte’s right to free speech and to tell his side of the story.
We argued that his account was both truthful and in the public interest, particularly as it related to a widely reported and emotionally charged breakup. In this case, free speech wasn’t just about publishing a story—it was about ensuring that one party in a public dispute wasn't unfairly silenced.
Keir Starmer’s 2013 CPS guidance vs. 2023 practice
It’s also worth remembering the 2013 guidance issued by Keir Starmer, who was then Director of Public Prosecutions. In that guidance, particularly in paragraphs 8 and 11, it was made clear that communication offences online should only be prosecuted in limited and serious circumstances. According to the guidance, prosecution should only follow where the communication presents a credible threat of violence, and importantly, that threat must be directed at a specific individual. This was intended to protect free speech, even where comments were offensive or upsetting, by setting a high threshold for legal action.
However, in 2023, when Keir Starmer had become Prime Minister, individuals of good character with no previous criminal history were sent to prison for as long as three and a half years for posts that, while controversial, did not appear to meet those very thresholds. This raises serious questions about consistency in how free speech is treated under the law. While the 2013 CPS guidance is still largely in place—although updated from time to time—it now seems that prosecutions can happen even where communications don’t meet the criteria set out in that guidance.
This selective approach to enforcement is a real danger to free speech. We believe strongly that the law must be applied fairly and consistently. While we accept that free speech is not an absolute right and must be balanced with protections like defamation and harassment law, these limits must be clear and fairly enforced. If you feel the law has been applied unfairly in your case, we are ready to stand with you and represent your rights.
Free speech or defamation? Knowing the difference
In defamation cases, it often comes down to whether what was said harms someone’s reputation. But UK law also protects your right to express yourself—within reason. The three main legal defences are: Truth – if what you said is factually accurate, that’s a complete defence.
Honest Opinion – you’re allowed to express opinions as long as they are genuinely held and based on facts. Public Interest – if the statement was made on a matter of public concern and you reasonably believed it needed to be said, the law may protect you. That said, the law doesn’t protect speech that amounts to hate speech, incitement to violence, or harassment.
What you can do to stay on the right side of the law
If you want to speak out on controversial topics, especially online, it helps to think ahead. Make sure what you're saying is based on facts, not rumours. Say clearly when you’re sharing a personal opinion. Think about how your words might come across to others.
And remember that platform rules can be even stricter than the law. If you’re worried about whether your speech might get you into legal trouble—or if someone is threatening you for expressing your views—it’s worth getting legal advice early on. A specialist free speech lawyer can help you understand your rights and options.
Call us free now on 08006127211 to book your consultation with one of our specialist media lawyers or click here for a call back.
