Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Convictions for “hate speech” have catapulted to record highs in Britain, locking up people posting their opinions online while letting rapists, paedophiles and violent offenders walk free. The recent increase in jailtime for offenders exposes not just a broken system, but the dangerous hypocrisy at the heart of government.
Policing Words, Not Actions
According to recent figures, prosecutions for hate speech – mostly online – are at record highs. In 2024 alone, 44 people were convicted for speech offences. To put it into perspective, that’s almost a third of all such convictions in the past decade combined.
Police in the UK are now making 30 arrests every day – nearly 12,000 per year – for allegedly offensive messages on social media. Largely, they’re ordinary people, angry at the news, perhaps clumsy with their words, or simply unaware of where the lines are these days. While burglary investigations have collapsed due to a lack of officers, and violent crime remains a persistent concern, thousands of police hours are being poured into tracking tweets, demonstrating an apparent shift in legal priorities. Protecting feelings or agendas online appears a more urgent issue than protecting people in real life.
Intent Rather Than Impact
What’s taking most by surprise is how low the legal threshold is for convicting offenders. Under the Public Order Act 1986, prosecutors don’t need to show that words actually caused any violence or unrest. In fact, they don’t even need to prove that anybody was likely to act on them at all – the important part is claiming the words were posted with the intent of stirring up hatred.
So, who decides intent? How much context is taken into account? As we’ve seen with Lucy Connolly’s imprisonment and recent release, a single tweet that was quickly deleted can be treated the same as a deliberate, physical campaign to incite violence. The result of which is a justice system that punishes people for what officials think they probably meant instead of what they actually did.
Starmer’s Stark Hypocrisy
When the UK Prime Minister was Director of Public Prosecutions, he recognised the dangers of criminalising impulsive online speech. In 2013, he issued guidelines that specifically granted leniency for those who deleted posts promptly as a sign of genuine remorse. That guidance appears somewhat sensible, allowing people a cool-down period in the case of posting in the heat of the moment, also preventing overreach, and safeguarding free speech.
Today, however, Starmer’s government presides over the harshest wave of speech prosecutions the UK has ever recorded, implying the principles he personally once introduced have now been cast aside. Lucy Connolly, who has just been released from prison following a tweet (which she quickly deleted) would have actually been spared jailtime if Starmer’s very own guidelines were followed.
It now seems that Britain finds itself in a position in which it punishes emotional online outbursts more severely than real-world acts of violence.
Misplaced Justice
Reports reveal that rapists, paedophiles and even a terror offender have been spared prison, receiving lighter sentences than someone convicted over an online comment, and often with suspended sentences meaning they avoid jailtime altogether. Domestic abusers receive community orders, while Lucy Connolly serves time behind bars.
The Observer reported that around 40% of convicted adult sexual offenders are spared prison, instead receiving community orders, fines, or suspended terms. That totals almost 15,000 individuals who avoided serving time behind bars between 2013-2020. The Guardian reported in 2023 that judges are often instructed, directly or via strong pressure, to not jail certain offenders including rapists, especially if they were already on bail, to avoid overcrowding in prisons. The Telegraph also reported this year that a convicted child rapist avoided jail altogether, credited at least in part due to the prison capacity crisis.
In 2024, The Sun uncovered that only about 20% of offenders convicted for possessing or sharing child sexual abuse images receive custodial sentences. The remaining 80%, regardless of the volume or severity of their offences, get away with fines or suspended sentences. This includes high-profile cases like BBC’s Huw Edwards, who, despite possessing multiple child abuse images, avoided jail completely.
Two-Tier Speech System?
Critics argue we are entering a two-tier system, separating what is allowed and what isn’t based purely on the ideology represented. Their angle is that progressive narratives are shielded, no matter how it’s stated, whereas anything nationalist or conservative get punished with zeal.
This suggested two-tier system corrodes trust, leading citizens away from believing justice is blind. It highlights a system that can pick and choose who to prosecute based not on their actions, but on the political flavour of their words. Whether you agree with what’s actually being said or not, it erodes the legitimacy of the system and fuels resentment. After all, what if those in charge change their minds in future?
The more that this dissent is silenced in the name of harmony, the state ironically risks deepening divisions in society and creating more radical opposition.
True Cost of Fear
Those who support the crackdown on “hate speech” argue it’s necessary to protect vulnerable communities and prevent hate from spreading. However, numbers do not appear to support this claim – despite thousands of arrests and record-high convictions, there is little or no evidence that “hate” itself is reducing. Instead, we’re seeing a growing culture of fear.
In everyday conversations, ordinary people are self-censoring, especially so online. Journalists may dull their words, teachers bite their tongues when the curriculum inevitably changes, and the general population are more likely now to measure their words at the pub or on the bus.
Britain, then, appears to be transforming into a place where expression is conditional, contingent, and policed. Instead of reducing real harm, people increasingly feel that policies are breeding paranoia and distrust.
Censorship in Numbers
There’s a big gap between what the nation believes, and what it’s confident in saying, largely due to increasing censorship. Below are some figures and their discrepancies, taken from a Gov.uk report:
- 1 in 7 journalists say they avoid certain topics vs 30% of worldwide counterparts. However, the report stipulates “self-reported levels of self-censorship are artificially low because the ‘tough-mindedness’ of newsrooms and journalists mean that many are reluctant to admit self-censorship”
- 33.5% of academic staff say they self-censor
- 38% of students say “universities are becoming less tolerant of a wide range of viewpoints”
A couple of other reports from Freedom in the Arts and Commission for Countering Extremism found:
- 84% of art respondents said they “never, rarely, or only sometimes” feel free to speak publicly about their opinions
- 78% agreed that “people working in the arts wouldn’t dare own up to right-of-centre political opinions”
- Most people “believe in free speech” but found “a clear pattern of increased sensitivity” around Islam
- 38% said they “have to hold back on expressing their views about Islamic topics” vs 17% who said the same about Christianity
- 30% said they need to hold back expressing their views on religion in general
- 33% believe free speech is not adequately protected
And in general, the “spiral of silence” is increasing in its effectiveness – the idea that individuals in communities are more likely to self-censor when they perceive they are probably in the minority. The idea of feeling in a minority, of course, is emboldened by certain topics being punished and others being praised. The same Gov.uk report said:
- 6% of academic staff identify themselves as right wing vs 30% of the general public
- 15% of academics said they support the conservative party vs 44% at the most recent election before the report
- 13% of students said they voted “Leave” vs 52% in the general election
The report rationalises these results in the following: “given the prevalence of progressive views in academia, it is likely that people with more conservative views, especially those that are socially conservative, are much less likely to feel comfortable expressing them in university settings.”
The Bigger Picture
It’s not happening in a vacuum. Across the West, democracies struggle to balance free expression with the desire to regulate online “hate”. The UK’s path appears particularly extreme right now, with the sheer volume of arrests, the punishment being offered, and the hypocrisy of politicians making U-turns on their own promises.
If citizens can’t speak freely, honestly, and even clumsily, without fear of losing their liberty, then it appears free speech only exists on paper and when it suits the decision-makers.
Final Thought
Is Britain turning a blind eye to violent criminals while locking up citizens for their opinions? Do the public want a Prime Minister who says one thing about fairness in prosecution, but does the opposite when in power?
Seeing this happen in the UK, it’s not difficult to imagine it spreading through the West. Perhaps it already has.
Join the Conversation
Tell us your thoughts on what’s happening with free speech, whether in the UK or abroad. Do you still feel able, in a regular conversation, to say what you truly believe? Or do you find yourself whispering or avoiding certain topics for fear of persecution? Let us know.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: UK News
Free speech keeps our governments sane. This is the real reason why free speech is vital for the peace and viability of a society. The main problem with punishing those who speak their opinions as opposed to being “yes people” for the government narratives, is as was mentioned, self censorship. When people self censor, no criticism of government happens. When those in power get no critical feedback from the public they start believing their own lies. The entire governmental apparatus becomes like a cult where it is forbidden to say or think anything the cult sees as a core narrative of the group. Insane notions prevail among the decision makers and very harmful policies are enacted. “Ukraine is winning” so we must send more money, weapons and people.” “the vaccines are safe and effective so we must force them on everyone.”
Society becomes delusional and can fail because those in charge become more and more insane with their cult like system which believes more and more things ungrounded in reality. Delusional societies can collapse when the resources of a country are redirected for quixotic insane programs.
Free speech is vital for the sanity of society and those who wish to take it away are a threat to society in ways they can not conceive.
Britain is broken civil war is coming and the illegals will feel the hammer of God, you are not welcome – leave
No one in the legal system can validate their identity. That means all charges must be dropped for the prosecution service is operating a fraudulent system.