The Freedom of Speech Bill (2026)
By Preston Byrne, Michael Reiners, and Elijah Granet
There is rarely a liberty more important than that of speech - Thomas Paine, the great contemporary of Adam Smith, wrote “he who dares not offend, cannot be honest”. In a free society, which is what we aspire to create and traditionally had held dear, it is freedom of speech alongside the protection of property and freedom of contract, which underpin our way of life. Sadly, that is under threat, and has been for almost 50 years. Every year, thousands of citizens are arrested for what they say online - sometimes, what is said is unpleasant and offensive, other times, it is a misunderstanding of the laws in place. But what cannot be debated is the simple fact that in a nation which seeks to prosper, respect human rights, and allow its people to reach fulfilment, freedom of speech must be sacrosanct.
As the academic Adam Tomkins, who is the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, has highlighted - there are a number of cases in the last 12 months that demonstrate how poorly drafted laws and being poorly enforced. Whilst the cases of Allison Pearson, Lucy Connolly, Graham Lineham, and Palestine Action all differ, each highlights the same problem: we have failed to uphold freedom of speech, even for those whose speech we may find offensive, repugnant, or, to us, dangerous. There should be no right to protect us from offence, yet, the law thinks otherwise. As with so much of the rest of our political economy, the state has attempted to engineer comfort and protection against the necessary unpleasantries of life, and hearing objectionable opinions or statements is another fact that has been attempted to be swept away.
Eroding freedom of speech is not healthy for democracy, as we have discovered. The great reorganisation of British politics, towards populism on the left and right, has been driven in-part by concerns around freedom of speech. Lord Ashcroft found that 42% of people have stopped themselves from expressing their true opinions on controversial matters - if this is truly the case, it is no wonder that anxiety and concern is directed towards those institutions which prosecute ‘the excesses of contention’. The drivers of populism across the West has been driven by these anxieties, looking to overturn the governments which is deemed to be intruding on the rights of their people to security in their material and legal position. If the state is engender better and more democratic engagement, both between itself and the people, and between individuals inclusively, it should more robustly uphold freedom of speech, and clarify its role as adjudicator.
We do not believe that freedom of speech is gone - it still exists and remains at the front of mind for lawyers, politicians, and judges. It is upheld by Article 10 of the ECHR, even if vaguely, and recent governments have made overt steps to protect it in higher education. However, despite these good intentions, freedom of speech continues to be eroded. The Online Safety Act, the Public Order Acts, the Malicious Communications Act, the Obscene Publications Act - the list goes on - all continue to erode that ancient liberty of freedom of speech and expression. Now is the time, for those who value such liberties, to be proactive in our refusal to accept one more incursion on our freedoms.
The Adam Smith Institute is, therefore, proud to stand at the vanguard of organisations who wish to protect and restore freedom of speech. Preston Byrne, the ASI’s Legal Fellow and partner at Byrne & Storm LLP, Michael Reiners, and Elijah Granet have jointly authored the Freedom of Speech Bill: a rigorously drafted and legally sound Bill that would redress the abolition of the ancient liberty of freedom of speech, and enshrine the right to free expression by the public (with narrow and objective exclusions). This Bill, if enacted, would have a similar effect as the First Amendment in the United States of America, protecting British citizens from government censorship. However, in addition to its protections, the Bill would also prohibit the state from withholding information (other than that which could compromise national security).
