England’s house afire amid the limitations on free speech

A perusal of recent headlines recalls a lesson I absorbed deeply while learning to parent: When creating house rules and attempting to instill a strong sense of what is “right and just” into your domestic society one must be able to defend the house policies clearly and rationally. If the parent cannot do that, then he or she must consider whether those policies are, in fact, poorly thought out or even downright indefensible.

Similarly, punishment must involve a sensibly measured response to rule-breaking; it must be both instructive and constructive, helping a little criminal understand why their behavior was wrong, and the rightness of better behavior. Particularly when emotions are running hot, the parent must be able to say more than, “well, those are the rules,” and render an off-balance, too-severe sentence.

When one has been put in charge of others, whether small children or tax-paying adults, both justice and mercy demand a routine review of the rules, a reconsideration of sentencing, and — most importantly — a whole-hearted listening to the concerns of the charged, to better ascertain where standing rules might have become too unreasonable to be just.

As an extreme example, a rule against using the telephone after 10 p.m. might be quite reasonably ignored if the house has come afire at 10:45.

In England, where it could be argued that social conflagrations are growing wild, writer and comic Graham Linehan recently disembarked from his flight at Heathrow to be arrested by five — five! — police officers. His crime involved posting three rather banal, unwitty (and possibly criminally unlawful) tweets opining negatively on individuals who identify as transgender.

Linehan had been expressing his own thoughts, an act which — popular or not, pretty or not, moral or immoral — has historically been tolerated and protected as free speech under British Common Law. The United States modeled its first amendment on that tradition and so did our child-raising household, where all notions were permitted open debate so long as idea-combatants could first explain their opponent’s argument back to them, to their satisfaction.

In Linehan’s case I’m not sure he or the British government could ever satisfactorily explain their arguments to each other. The UK leadership cannot convincingly reconcile Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent insistence that, “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time … and it will last for a very, very long time” with their demonstrated enthusiasm for arresting those whose “free speech” crosses the boundaries of ever-growing limitations, which can broadly interpret almost any remark to be a prohibited “incitement to hatred,” potentially resulting in jail time.

Conversely, Linehan may have difficulty defending the rawness of his taboo thoughts, but might find sympathy in arguing, “this is my opinion, to which I am entitled, and if I am wrong, please sensibly convince me otherwise.”

If “incitement to hate” is going to be the new line in the sand it will have to be clearly and legally spelled out in order to be objectively, rather than subjectively enforced. Otherwise, something as fundamental as burning a flag — which even conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued was protected free speech — could suddenly be declared as inciting hate.

It’s not enough to say “you mustn’t hate” to people; everyone already knows that. Hatred is a human instinct, one which Jesus himself acknowledged as part of our make-up. “Love your enemies and pray [for them]” (Mt 5:44) didn’t arise out of nowhere.

Whether a leader be a parent or an elected official, they must facilitate honorable dialogue to best inform and then inspire; they must demonstrate (if they can) where what is good, true or beautiful can and must transcend the hate.

If they cannot convincingly do that, then they must reconsider all their rules and reasonings, and subsequent punishments, until they can.

Stopping difficult, controversial or “hateful” words before they are uttered may leave some feelings unhurt, but the price of insult-free living will be the destruction of authentic engagement between people. It will mean more social distrust, loneliness and isolation which are already an epidemic.

Most troublingly it will (as with all great dysfunction whether in families or societies) breed intimidated minds feeling fearful, trapped and hopeless, which may well be a sin against the Holy Spirit, and thus unforgivable.

I do hope England can right its increasingly dysfunctional house before it burns to the ground.

Read More Commentary

Discover a New Year 

Question Corner: Why is New Year’s Day a holy day of obligation?

Bowling Three Strikes in a Row

5 Faith-related New Year’s Goals

Question Corner: What does the term ‘protomartyr’ mean?

How celebrating Mary Jan. 1 celebrates the Incarnation

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

 Print