One of the preachers responds: “If I was doing a happy, clappy song it would be ok?”

The officer replies: “I just think it’s all wrong,” before walking away.

Preacher Mon B, who leads Mad 4 Jesus Ministries, told the Mail she was initially instructed not to stand in front of the station barriers before the officer gave what she described as an “unnecessary” opinion.

This exchange echoes other recent confrontations between police and Christian street preachers across the UK. In another widely publicised incident, the Metropolitan Police apologised after Christian singer Harmonie London was told to stop performing Christian music outside a church.

The pattern extends beyond informal interventions. When the Free Speech Union (FSU) recently investigated arrests for public order offences committed while preaching in public places, it identified approximately 100 cases, all of which involved Christian preachers. The search specifically looked for reports involving individuals of other faiths or none, but found no equivalent cases involving other religions or atheistic street preachers.

High-profile cases aren’t hard to find. In 2024, Avon and Somerset Police issued a Community Protection Warning to Christian street preacher and FSU member Dia Moodley for criticising other religions – conduct later deemed “disproportionate” by the force itself. The warning attempted to prohibit Mr Moodley from “passing comments on any other religion or comparing them to Christianity,” and from displaying “graphic material”. With our support, Mr Moodley mounted a legal challenge that ultimately led the force to admit it had overreached.

Commenters on the video of Mon B’s confrontation outside King’s Cross were unimpressed by the officer’s actions. One asked: “I’m sorry is this officer paid to give out her opinions? Or is she paid to protect the public.” Another said: “You are not breaking the law. She should be out catching criminals not bothering you.” A third added: “Luckily you’re not paid for your opinions. You’re paid to do your job and stopping peaceful preachers is not part of it.”

While the officer didn’t threaten arrest, issue a dispersal order, or physically intervene, she also failed to cite any statutory power. She may have believed her intervention was a discretionary form of engagement consistent with “words of advice”. The College of Policing’s Public Order Public Safety Authorised Professional Practice (APP) allows officers to “take innovative actions that are not included in this guidance to resolve incidents”, provided those actions are lawful and comply with human rights. The APP applies to both pre-planned and spontaneous events involving perceived risks to public order, making its principles relevant even in brief interactions in crowded public settings like King’s Cross.

However, any such action must still meet core professional standards. Officers are required to act in ways that are proportionate, legitimate, accountable, and in accordance with the Code of Ethics, the Standards of Professional Behaviour, and the Seven Principles of Public Life. The officer’s morally loaded remark – “I just think it’s all wrong” – is difficult to reconcile with those expectations, particularly the requirement in the Code of Ethics that officers “are aware of – and challenge – the influence that biases (such as stereotypes, ‘group think’ or partiality) can have on our actions and decisions, and ensure that we act with impartiality”. As the APP itself makes clear, police intervention short of arrest can still interfere with the right to freedom of expression (Article 10) under the European Convention on Human Rights, which extends its protection even to speech “that others may find insulting or offensive”.

Whatever the legal justification (if any), the footage of this latest incident adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that Christian street preachers are being disproportionately targeted under the guise of maintaining public order.

The post “I just think it’s wrong”: Police officer tells Christian to stop preaching outside King’s Cross appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

Now business groups are now warning that Angela Rayner’s new Employment Rights Bill could push the system over the edge. The Deputy Prime Minister’s plan to grant rights to claim unfair dismissal after one day in the job (rather than two years) is one major driver, as is the proposal to extend the time limit for bringing harassment claims from three months to six. However, Clause 20 – the ‘banter ban’ – which dramatically expands employers’ legal liability for harassment by customers, clients and audience members, may well prove just as consequential.

Clause 20 revives, and radically expands, a provision that was scrapped from the Equality Act in 2013. Back then, employers could in theory be held liable if their staff were subjected to non-sexual harassment by a customer on three separate occasions and they failed to act. Labour’s proposal removes that safeguard entirely. Under the new regime, a single remark – whether overheard, unintended, or not even directed at anyone in particular – could trigger a claim for harassment. And if a tribunal finds that the comment created a “hostile environment” related to an employee’s protected characteristic, employers could be liable for unlimited damages, unless they can prove they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent the ‘harm’ caused.

That defence sets an exceptionally high bar. In the existing framework, employers must already meet this threshold in relation to their own staff, typically through detailed and regularly refreshed EDI training. But Clause 20 extends that same duty to cover what members of the public say. As a result, employers could now be held liable if a customer, student, audience member or guest says something that upsets an employee, unless they can prove they did everything reasonably possible to stop it.

That’s a near-impossible standard, and it’s one of the reasons Clause 20 is expected to drive thousands more claims into a tribunal system already at breaking point. According to our own estimates, this provision alone could result in 4,750 additional claims each year, with 875 proceeding to full hearings.

The good news, though, is there’s still a chance to fix the situation. A group of peers, led by FSU General Secretary Lord Young, have put forward a suite of targeted amendments designed to blunt Clause 20’s worst effects. The arguments have now been heard in the Lords, but before those amendments return at Report Stage in a few weeks’ time, it’s vital that peers hear from you.

The window to act is still open. Please use our quick-write tool to contact a peer and urge them to support the changes needed to protect free speech.

The post The employment tribunal system is cracking – help stop the ‘banter ban’ from breaking it beyond repair appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

At its core is a principle the Free Speech Union pressed for during the consultation: that speech is presumptively lawful unless specifically prohibited by statute or common law. The guidance confirms that internal policies, institutional values, or codes of conduct – including equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) frameworks – do not have the force of law and cannot justify restrictions on otherwise lawful expression.

This carries significant implications. Universities must now approach questions of freedom of speech through a three-step framework. First, is the speech lawful? If so, second, are there any “reasonably practicable steps” the institution can take to secure it? The OfS makes clear that this is no box-ticking exercise. A wide range of measures – including what the guidance refers to as “negative steps”, such as declining to investigate frivolous complaints from the perennially offended, removing restrictive policies, or simply allowing an event to proceed – may fall within the scope of what is “reasonably practicable”. Crucially, the guidance emphasises that concerns about reputational risk, institutional values, or the offensiveness of a viewpoint are not valid grounds for withholding protection. Unless allowing the speech would interfere with an essential university function, institutions are under a positive legal duty to facilitate it. Only where no such steps are available should the third stage be reached: assessing whether the restriction would be lawful and proportionate under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The guidance also offers detailed illustrations across a wide range of university functions – including hiring and promotion, event management, disciplinary processes, codes of conduct, and the use of anonymous reporting mechanisms that risk suppressing lawful expression under vague categories such as “microaggressions”. Universities will be expected, for instance, to remove political litmus tests from recruitment and promotion processes, such as requirements to submit personal statements affirming commitment to EDI. They are also advised to triage complaints early to prevent vexatious or politically motivated investigations, and to ensure that speech is not curtailed merely because it is controversial, unpopular, or offensive to some.

Alongside the guidance, the government has confirmed that the OfS will soon be empowered to operate a new complaints scheme, albeit with a narrower remit than originally envisaged, following Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s decision last year to stop commencement of the Act as passed, opting instead for a watered-down version that strips out key enforcement mechanisms. The scheme will now cover staff and visiting speakers, but not students, who will remain under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Nor will it extend to students’ unions, which were excluded from the Act’s statutory duties following Ms Phillipson’s intervention. Nonetheless, universities and colleges will remain accountable for protecting free speech across their campuses, and the OfS is likely to regard robust oversight of students’ unions as a “reasonably practicable step” in fulfilling this duty.

The publication of this guidance represents a clear setback for the higher education lobby that had sought to preserve a discretionary framework in which duties under the Equality Act 2010 – particularly the Public Sector Equality Duty and protections against harassment – could be interpreted as overriding the statutory duty to secure freedom of speech. For too long, that approach has enabled universities to curtail lawful but contentious viewpoints and to impose professional penalties that have chilled the exercise of academic freedom as defined in law. Whether the new standards set out by the OfS can be sustained will depend, in large part, on the authority and resilience of the complaints scheme. Preserving that mechanism now becomes the next battleground in this regulatory contest.

The post Universities told to uphold free speech “within the law” in major regulatory shake-up appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

The event, held at the Backyard Comedy Club in Bethnal Green marked a new phase in our “Say No to the Banter Ban” campaign, which has so far focused on the impact Clause 20 could have on the hospitality sector. This time, the spotlight fell on another cornerstone of Britain’s cultural and night-time economy: the comedy circuit.

During the evening, Lord Young spoke to comedians including Andrew Doyle and Francis Foster, as well as members of the public, about the risks Clause 20 poses to freedom of expression in live performance spaces. There was widespread concern among performers and punters alike about the chilling effect the proposed law could have – not just on what comedians are allowed to say, but on the spontaneity and irreverence that live comedy depends on.

You can watch the video we’ve made about this here.

Clause 20 would make employers liable for harassment by third parties – including customers, audience members, and performers who aren’t employees – if they fail to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent it. That means comedy venues could find themselves on the hook for off-colour jokes or contentious remarks, even if comments weren’t directed at anyone, and even if no complaint is made. With no clear guidance from the Government on what “reasonable steps” entail, many businesses will err on the side of over-enforcement.

We’ve already seen what this kind of risk-aversion looks like. In 2022, the Pleasance Theatre cancelled Jerry Sadowitz’s Edinburgh Fringe show after complaints from the audience, despite clear content warnings. But under Clause 20, if staff had taken offence at his routine, they would have been legally entitled to sue the venue for ‘harassment’ unless it had taken “all reasonable steps” to prevent it. The result would be a formal legal incentive for bosses to avoid booking anything likely to provoke complaints from easily offended staff.

That’s exactly the kind of overreach Lord Young and a cross-party group of peers are seeking to prevent, having tabled a series of amendments ahead of the Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords. These include exempting certain venues from the clause’s scope; reinstating a safeguard from the original 2010 Equality Act so that employers are only liable after at least two prior incidents of harassment, not for a single overheard remark; and clarifying that conversation or speech involving political, moral, religious or social views cannot be treated as harassment, unless the opinion is indecent or grossly offensive.

The Bill is currently progressing through Parliament, with the House of Lords having just heard the key arguments. But the window to act is still open. Our ‘Write to a Peer’ tool makes it easy for members and supporters to contact a member of the second chamber and urge them to support these amendments, which Lord Young hopes to bring back at Report Stage in a few weeks’ time.

Click here to use the campaign tool and make your voice heard.

The post No laughing matter: Lord Young warns Employment Rights Bill could chill live performance appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

The decision, handed down by Lords Reed, Hamblen and Lady Simler, denies Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire permission to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling that found in favour of Kristie Higgs, a Christian pastoral administrator dismissed in 2019 for Facebook posts raising concerns about extreme sex education and gender ideology in her son’s primary school.

That ruling, delivered in February, was widely hailed as a landmark for freedom of belief. In finding that Ms Higgs had been unlawfully discriminated against, the Court affirmed that employers cannot rely on speculative reputational harm or third-party offence to justify the dismissal of staff who express protected views in private settings. The Supreme Court’s refusal to reopen the case now cements that judgment as binding legal precedent.

The story began in October 2018 when a parent at Farmor’s, a secondary school with academy status, complained about “prejudiced” posts on Ms Higgs’s Facebook page. In them, she criticised the introduction of materials strongly influenced by gender ideology, which she believed would “indoctrinate” children to believe “that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as traditional marriage, and that gender is a matter of choice, not biology, so that it’s up to them what sex they are”.

Following the complaint, Ms Higgs became the subject of an internal school investigation, which included speculative claims that she might “exert influence” over vulnerable children. During the disciplinary process, which included a six-hour interrogation, her Christian beliefs were likened to those of a “pro-Nazi right-wing extremist”.

She was subsequently dismissed for bringing the school into disrepute, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle. Ms Higgs argued that she was discriminated against because of her Christian beliefs. The school countered that the dismissal stemmed not from her beliefs but from how she expressed them – a defence increasingly used in employment disputes where employers cite reputational risk as justification for sanctioning speech some find controversial.

An Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled against Ms Higgs on those very grounds. While accepting that her religious beliefs were protected under the Equality Act 2010, it held that her dismissal was lawful because of how others might perceive the Facebook posts.

Ms Higgs appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the ET had erred in several ways, particularly in failing to ask whether her posts were in fact a manifestation of her beliefs, and therefore protected by law. UK law recognises that the right to religious and philosophical beliefs includes the right to express them. As the EAT noted, the manifestation of belief is often inseparable from the belief itself. The EAT also ruled that the ET had failed to consider whether the school’s concerns about reputational harm were well-founded or purely notional.

Despite those findings, the EAT did not resolve the case but remitted it to the Tribunal, leaving open the central question of whether Ms Higgs’s dismissal was lawful.

Believing the EAT should have resolved the matter itself, she appealed to the Court of Appeal, joined by the Free Speech Union (FSU) as an intervener. Ultimately, the Court upheld both her appeal and the FSU’s key submissions.

A panel of three senior judges – Lord Justices Underhill and Bean and Lady Justice Falk – ruled unanimously that the dismissal was “unquestionably a disproportionate response”. The Court declined to return the case to the Tribunal, concluding instead that “the ET would be bound to find that the claimant’s dismissal was not objectively justified and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination”.

In reaching its decision, the Court relied on the precedent set in Page v NHS Trust Development, which established that dismissal for expressing a belief is lawful only if the manifestation of that belief is objectively objectionable and the employer’s response is proportionate. Employers must assess what was actually said, not how others may subjectively interpret it.

Another key finding concerned reputational risk. The Court confirmed that an employer cannot rely on vague fears of backlash to justify disciplinary action, and there must be evidence of actual harm, such as a loss of clients, funding or operational capacity. In Ms Higgs’s case, any reputational risk was, the Court found, “speculative at best”.

The ruling also reaffirmed the high threshold for when speech can justify dismissal. Robust or provocative views do not in themselves warrant professional sanction. The Court stressed that even exaggerated or offensive language remains protected unless it crosses the line into speech likely to incite hatred or hostility. This is a critical clarification, given the growing tendency to conflate legitimate expressions of belief with “hate speech” based purely on perceived offensiveness. Ms Higgs’s posts, it concluded, were not objectionable in the legal sense, as they were neither “grossly offensive” nor “primarily intended to incite hatred or disgust for homosexuals or trans people”.

Taken together, these clarifications represent a significant victory for those who value free speech and intellectual diversity in the workplace. The ruling establishes a more objective, evidence-based framework for handling belief discrimination cases and makes it harder for employers to act as enforcers of political orthodoxy at the expense of fundamental rights.

Responding to the Supreme Court decision to reject Farmor’s School’s final appeal, Ms Higgs said: “Today’s judgment is as important for free speech as it is for freedom of religion. Employers will no longer be able to rely on their theoretical fears of reputational damage or subjective concerns about causing offence to discipline employees for exercising their fundamental freedom to express their deeply held beliefs.”

The Christian Legal Centre, which supported Ms Higgs throughout the case, also welcomed the final outcome. Its chief executive, Andrea Williams, said: “The Court of Appeal ruling, now unequivocally upheld, powerfully demonstrated that the foundational Christian principles of free speech and religious liberty are not yet extinguished from English law. The resolution of Kristie’s case establishes a critical legal precedent that will resonate for many years to come, protecting the right to express Christian beliefs without fear of reprisal.”

The post Victory for free speech as Supreme Court shuts down final appeal in Kristie Higgs case appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

According to a recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), colleges including Georgetown, Tulane, Missouri State, Carnegie Mellon and Princeton have seen a surge in student requests for administrative orders prohibiting contact from their peers.

Although informal no-contact arrangements existed previously, the widespread adoption of formal NCO policies was driven by the Department for Education’s 2011 ‘Dear Colleague’ letter on Title IX, which encouraged universities to use “interim measures”, including NCOs, to prevent escalation during investigations. These restrictions extend to written, electronic, or even third-party communication.

In principle, NCOs were intended to be non-punitive: a way to reduce conflict between two parties without presuming guilt while due process took its course. In practice, however, violations can result in suspension, formal charges, and even expulsion.

More recently, the grounds for issuing these orders have expanded. While some institutions still require credible allegations of misconduct, others now allow NCOs in response to subjective criteria like ‘psychological harm’, ‘problematic interactions’, or even ‘emotional discomfort’.

At Tulane, for instance, an order may be granted “if such contact may be harmful or detrimental”, a standard that invites wide interpretation. Carnegie Mellon permits NCOs in cases of persistent “unwanted” or “indirect” contact, including disagreement in a group chat. Meanwhile, Missouri State University applies them “when there exists a reasonable concern that physical or psychological harm may result from such contact”.

While the WSJ notes these orders are often used to resolve roommate spats and breakups, their implications for freedom of expression are no less troubling.

In several recent cases, no threats or targeted harassment were alleged. Instead, orders were imposed on students whose views provoked disagreement or distress, even when expressed in classrooms.

A notable example comes from Princeton. Between 2022 and 2024, student journalists for The Princeton Tory, a conservative campus magazine, were served with NCOs after covering pro-Palestinian protests. In one case, Danielle Shapiro, a Jewish writer for the magazine, followed up by email with a protest organiser to confirm the accuracy of a published quote. The organiser viewed this as harassment, and the university issued an NCO preventing further contact.

In another incident, the magazine’s editor, Alexandra Orbuch, was reporting at a November 2023 rally organised by the Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest campaign when a graduate student protester attempted to block her camera and allegedly shoved her. Although Orbuch reported the altercation to campus police, the protester was subsequently granted an NCO against her. This was despite university policy requiring a complainant to first request no further contact before such an order is issued – a step that had not been taken. Orbuch was warned not to approach or write about the individual involved, and a Princeton dean reportedly suggested she consider withdrawing published articles and avoid media interviews. Such a directive arguably amounts to unconstitutional prior restraint, barring a student not only from contact, but from writing about or publicly commenting on another person. Courts have long held that blanket prohibitions on future expression are among the most serious infringements on free speech under American constitutional law.

Legal experts have long warned that the overuse of NCOs raises serious concerns. The Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education sets a high threshold for peer harassment: conduct must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it effectively bars the victim’s access to education. Hurt feelings, offensive views, or emotional distress – without more – do not meet that standard.

A recent federal case highlights the continuing importance of that principle. At Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE), Maggie DeJong, a Christian graduate student, successfully challenged the university’s use of NCOs. The case stemmed from three simultaneous orders issued after classmates objected to her views on race, religion, and politics, including her support for traditional Christian teaching on sexuality, her opposition to critical race theory, and her belief that political correctness was stifling open dialogue in the classroom. DeJong had made no threats and had not targeted any individual. Nonetheless, the university barred her from contacting the complainants in any form, including during class discussion and collaborative group coursework.

When DeJong took legal action, her lawyers argued that the orders “barred [DeJong] from fully participating in classes” and left her “chilled in her ability to frequent campus”. Although SIUE sought to have the case dismissed, a federal court ruled in March 2023 that she could pursue declaratory relief, stating: “A declaration that the [no-contact orders] violated her First Amendment rights would affirm her entitlement to damages.” The university later settled, agreeing to rescind the orders, revise its policies, and require three faculty members to undergo First Amendment training.

DeJong’s legal victory forms part of a broader pushback by US-based civil liberties groups against the expanding use of NCOs on campus. In some cases, that pressure has prompted policy revisions and limited reform. But the underlying problem remains. When speech that offends is redefined as harmful, and when administrative measures can be triggered by emotional discomfort rather than unlawful conduct, the result is a chilling effect on lawful expression.

The post Epidemic of “no-contact orders” on US campuses raises free speech concerns appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

In a move that escalates transatlantic tensions over online expression, Rubio said foreign officials “complicit in censoring” American individuals or media companies would be denied entry. The policy is understood to target regulatory actions taken abroad that, in Washington’s view, violate constitutional protections guaranteed to US citizens.

UK officials are reportedly seeking clarification from the White House following Rubio’s statement, but the measures appear directed at Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator tasked with enforcing the Online Safety Act (OSA). The legislation has drawn repeated criticism from US officials, who warn it asserts regulatory authority over American platforms in ways incompatible with First Amendment free speech protections.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio said. “It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on US citizens or US residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on US soil.”

He continued: “It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the US. We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech.”

The visa restrictions were accompanied by a post from Samuel Samson, a senior adviser at the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and an aide to Rubio. Writing on the State Department’s Substack, Samson described Britain and Europe as “a hotbed of digital censorship”. He warned that “Europe’s democratic backsliding not only impacts European citizens but increasingly affects American security and economic ties, along with the free speech rights of American citizens and companies”.

Citing custody data obtained by The Times, Samson pointed out that more than 12,000 people in the UK were arrested in 2023 for online posts, including, he noted, “comments critical of Europe’s migration crisis, that authorities deemed to be ‘grossly offensive’.”

The State Department also recently confirmed it is monitoring the case of Lucy Connolly, a member of the Free Speech Union and the wife of a Conservative councillor, who was sentenced to 31 months for a social media post about the Southport attacks.

These concerns have also been raised through formal diplomatic channels. In March, US diplomats from Samson’s DRL met with Foreign Office officials and raised concerns with Ofcom directly. A spokesperson said the visit aimed to “affirm the importance of freedom of expression in the UK and across Europe”.

At the centre of US objections is the OSA. Passed in October 2023, the law gives Ofcom sweeping enforcement powers, including the ability to fine platforms up to 10 per cent of their global revenue for failing to remove illegal or harmful content. Provisions relating to “illegal content” came into force on 17 March 2025, with Ofcom pledging rigorous enforcement.

Though full implementation is still pending, Ofcom had already assigned 466 staff to ‘online safety’ by July 2024, with further recruitment expected. Under the Act, platforms must conduct risk assessments, remove illegal material, and take “proportionate steps” to mitigate ‘harm’ to users.

Part of the problem is that the law’s reach is not limited to companies based in the UK. Under its extraterritorial provisions, Ofcom may issue compliance notices to services based overseas – including in the US – if they have a significant number of UK users, or target the UK market.

Critics in the US argue that these obligations amount to a de facto censorship regime with extraterritorial reach, one that places UK statutory requirements in direct tension with First Amendment protections. Rubio alluded to such concerns in his remarks: “In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against US tech companies and US citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.”

One of the clearest flashpoints is the case of Gab, a US-based platform with an estimated five million registered users, which has long positioned itself as a haven for unrestricted political speech.

On 16 March, Ofcom formally notified Gab that it fell within the scope of the Online Safety Act and was required to submit an “illegal harm risk assessment” by the end of the month. Non-compliance, the regulator warned, could trigger a substantial fine as well as a blocking order.

Gab responded with a public refusal. “We will not comply. We will not pay one cent,” the company’s CEO, Andrew Torba, wrote. “Our latest threatening letter from Ofcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads: compelled censorship and British citizens are thrown in jail for ‘hate speech’. We refuse to comply with this tyranny.”

The company’s legal team echoed that position, arguing that because it operates exclusively in the US, it is protected by the First Amendment. “The most fundamental of America’s laws – the First Amendment to our Constitution – ensures Gab’s right to provide a service that allows anyone, anywhere, to receive and impart political opinions of any kind, free from state interference, on its US-based servers,” they said.

Following Ofcom’s subsequent demand for user data, Gab blocked access to its platform for UK users, in a move intended to avoid falling within the regulator’s jurisdiction.

The dispute has sharpened long-simmering tensions between the UK and US governments. While Ofcom’s technocrats continue to frame the OSA as a tool to protect users from online ‘harms’, US Republicans increasingly see it as part of a broader shift toward digital censorship. That perception appears to be hardening – and in Rubio’s case, has now triggered retaliatory action.

There’s more on this story here.

The post US threatens UK officials over free speech appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

BBC News Persian, based in London, is part of the BBC World Service and broadcasts into Iran via satellite, digital platforms and radio. Officially banned in Iran, the channel remains widely viewed, reaching an estimated 18.5 million people weekly inside the country and beyond. Its reporting on Iranian politics, human rights abuses and protest movements has long drawn the ire of the regime, which accuses it of “support for terrorism” and “inciting violence and hate speech”.

In a statement issued on Monday, Director-General Tim Davie said the BBC had recorded a marked rise in cross-border harassment in recent months, describing the situation as “a direct assault on press freedom and human rights”.

The broadcaster says Iranian authorities have intensified efforts to silence its reporters, targeting staff based in the UK and other countries, and exerting pressure through their relatives in Iran. Family members have reportedly faced arbitrary interrogations, travel bans, passport confiscations and threats of asset seizure, as part of what David called “a significant and increasingly alarming” development.

“In addition to enduring personal security threats from Iranian state actors operating beyond Iran’s borders,” he said, “BBC News Persian journalists are now witnessing a disturbing rise in the persecution of their family members inside Iran. These acts are clearly designed to exploit family ties as a means of coercion – pressuring our journalists to abandon their work or return to Iran under false pretences.”

Davie urged the Iranian government “to immediately cease this campaign of intimidation and to stop targeting journalists with violence, threats, and psychological warfare”.

The pattern reflects a broader strategy increasingly employed by authoritarian regimes, whereby critical journalism abroad is suppressed through surveillance, legal pressure, and reprisals against family members who remain in the country. Iran has faced repeated accusations of engaging in this kind of transnational repression, extending its reach far beyond its borders in an effort to control coverage from exile.

In 2017, Iranian authorities froze the assets of more than 150 BBC Persian staff and launched criminal investigations in absentia. A court order listed current and former contributors by name, barring them from selling property or conducting financial transactions in Iran due to their affiliation with the broadcaster.

The BBC filed a formal complaint with the UN, followed by further submissions in 2018 and 2022. Its most recent complaint warned that journalists continued to face systematic targeting. Legal counsel Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC and Jennifer Robinson wrote: “We know from Iran’s past actions that it is willing to take cross-border and deadly action to silence its critics, and that it perceives independent journalism about Iran as a risk to its power.”

“Our clients from BBC News Persian receive threats of death and violence simply for doing their jobs – simply for being journalists. We call on the UN experts and the Human Rights Council to take swift, robust action to hold Iran to account and ensure that BBC News Persian journalists can report without fear.”

That reporting has included extensive coverage of the anti-government protests that erupted in Iran in 2022. Shortly afterwards, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs formally sanctioned the BBC, naming it among a list of organisations accused of “supporting terrorism” and “inciting unrest”.

In a recent internal survey, half of BBC News Persian staff said they had received online abuse or been harassed because of their work. Nearly 70 per cent said they had been unable to say goodbye to one or both of their parents before they died — a direct consequence of being unable to return to Iran without fear of reprisal.

Staff have also described intensely personal forms of retaliation. Some have seen elderly relatives in Iran interrogated or jailed. Former presenter Negin Shiraghaei said her seriously ill father was questioned by Iranian security services. Rana Rahimpour said her parents were summoned for questioning on multiple occasions.

Other journalists have faced blackmail. One presenter told Arab News she had been threatened with the release of fabricated stories and compromising images designed to damage her reputation. Similar tactics have been used against other staff, both male and female.

In late 2022, MI5 Director-General Ken McCallum revealed that British intelligence had disrupted at least ten Iranian-linked assassination or abduction plots in the UK that year alone. By the end of 2024, the number had risen to more than twenty. According to the UN, at least fifteen credible Iranian plots to kidnap or kill individuals on British soil have been identified since 2022, some involving criminal proxies and surveillance of journalists’ movements.

The BBC is now preparing to lodge a further complaint with the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures, calling on Iran to end its campaign of persecution against the corporation’s staff and their families.

With Iran’s transnational repression intensifying, its efforts to silence dissent beyond its borders is no longer just a human rights concern, but increasingly a geopolitical one. And the UK, home to some of its most effective critics, is now squarely in the crosshairs.

The post BBC warns of alarming escalation in Iranian harassment of Persian service journalists and their families appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

Ursula Doyle, who worked at the company for over a decade, brought a claim of belief-based and sex discrimination after facing backlash for publishing Material Girls, a 2021 book by the philosopher Kathleen Stock, which questions the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in law and policy.

Doyle resigned from her role as editorial director of Fleet, an imprint she founded in 2016, claiming the company had failed to protect her from abuse and had allowed a hostile culture to develop. Her legal case was funded by more than £63,000 in donations from supporters.

Following her resignation, she alleged that colleagues repeatedly targeted her online, accusing her of transphobia and tagging both Hachette and its Pride network in public posts. She said the company did nothing to intervene.

In a statement confirming the settlement, Doyle said: “In bringing this case, I hoped to demonstrate conclusively that employers cannot allow staff to be subjected to abuse because of their lawful views, nor ignore women’s rights to single-sex spaces.”

While Hachette has not admitted liability, the company has agreed to review its Trans Inclusion and Transitioning at Work Policy within the next three months. Doyle had singled out that policy as one of the main drivers of her claim, arguing that it “explicitly allows men who say they are women to use women’s toilets and shower facilities”.

She also claimed that Hachette undermined her authority as a publisher by moving paperback editions of certain authors’ books away from her imprint following complaints that her views were ‘transphobic’. That decision, she said, harmed her professional reputation both inside and outside the company.

Fleet, under Doyle’s leadership, had published a number of major prizewinning authors. But following the publication of Material Girls, she said she became increasingly isolated within the organisation and eventually developed stress-related health conditions that led to her resignation.

Doyle’s case has drawn wider attention due to its implications for freedom of expression in the publishing industry. In a crowdfunding appeal launched last year, she warned that gender-critical writers often struggle to find publishers, and that authors on unrelated topics face professional risk if they speak out.

“When you consider the impact these books have had on the conversations around sex and gender, it is easy to understand why publishing has been a key strategic target for gender identity activists,” she wrote. “Their attempts to suppress all dissent at source have made the sector a hostile environment for anyone who dares to stand up for reality and freedom of expression.”

Since the launch of the Free Speech Union in 2020, a growing number of authors have sought its advice and support, among them Julie Burchill, Helen Joyce, Holly Lawford-Smith, Allison Pearson, Gillian Philip and Sibyl Ruth. More than 250 authors are now members.

We’ve repeatedly raised concerns about the climate for free expression in publishing, highlighting the rise of morality clauses in contracts, the use of sensitivity readers to vet manuscripts, and the quiet removal of material deemed likely to cause offence. Authors have also reported books being denied shelf space or kept out of sight by booksellers unwilling to be seen promoting them. Some have even been disinvited from literary festivals after objections from sponsors, venue staff or fellow writers.

These developments reflect a growing tendency within the industry to prioritise reputational risk management over the principle of free inquiry, with serious implications for writers, publishers and readers alike.

For Doyle, the personal cost of that climate has been severe. She described her departure from the industry as personally devastating, saying the job had brought her “great satisfaction” and the chance to work with “some brilliant authors and colleagues”.

“The last five years have been taxing – emotionally, professionally and, latterly, financially,” she said. “My health and my peace of mind have both suffered.”

Despite that toll, she said she remained committed to the principle of sex-based rights in law and policy.

“The battle for sex realism continues,” she said. “In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the For Women Scotland case, I am hopeful that UK employers are beginning to realise that a policy they might have adopted in good faith and with the best intentions might have unforeseen consequences which harm women.”

There’s more on this story here.

The post Publisher settles case after claiming she was ‘hounded out’ over gender-critical views appeared first on The Free Speech Union.

Hamit Coskun, 50, was found guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday of using disorderly behaviour “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. District Judge John McGarva also found that he was “motivated at least in part by hostility towards members of a religious group”, meaning the offence was treated as religiously aggravated under section 31(1)(c) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

On 13 February, Coskun stood outside the Turkish Consulate, held aloft a burning copy of the Quran, and shouted phrases including “Islam is the religion of terrorists” and “the Quran is burning”. He had announced the protest in advance on social media and described it as a political act, intended to highlight what he views as the spread of hardline Islam within his native Turkey under President Erdoǧan.

As Coskun’s legal team noted in pre-trial submissions, the High Court has affirmed that “legitimate protest can be offensive, at least to some, and on occasions must be, if it is to have impact” (Munim Abdul v DPP [2021] EWHC 279 (Admin)). That judgment reflects longstanding Article 10 ECHR case law, which protects not only polite speech but also speech that offends, shocks or disturbs.

Coskun’s barrister, Katy Thorne KC, expanded on that argument in court, contending that the prosecution unlawfully interfered with his Article 10 rights. Political expression, she said, enjoys the highest level of protection.

In support of that submission, the defence cited section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, which provides that “nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents”. But Judge McGarva rejected that claim, ruling that section 29J applies only to Part 3A of the Act, which covers offences relating to the stirring up of religious hatred, and does not extend to public order offences under section 5, which falls under Part 1.

That legal outcome proved decisive in the outcome of the trial. It also exposed a gap in the law that Conservative MP Nick Timothy is now seeking to close.

Next week, he will introduce a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill in the House of Commons. Co-signed by 11 MPs, the Bill would extend the protections of section 29J to cover both section 4A and section 5 of the Public Order Act, the very provisions used to convict Coskun.

Mr Timothy and his co-signatories argue that without reform, section 29J offers little meaningful protection. The result, as Hamit’s case shows, is that individuals who criticise religion, particularly Islam, can still face prosecution, even when their speech is political, peaceful, and protected by Article 10.

Speaking to the Telegraph, Mr Timothy warned that the law is now being used to prosecute legitimate criticism and protest regarding Islam, effectively reviving blasphemy laws in all but name. “Parliament never voted for it, and the country doesn’t want it.”

“To use the Public Order Act in this way is completely unacceptable, and to argue the protester was shown to be guilty of disorderly conduct because he was attacked by others is grotesque. I will introduce a Bill to put a stop to all of this next week. I challenge the Government to support it.”

Sir Gavin Williamson, one of the MPs backing the Bill, said: “This Bill rightly draws a clear line in rejecting any attempt to introduce blasphemy laws through the back door.

“Britain abolished such laws to uphold open debate, critical thought, and the principle that no idea or belief is beyond scrutiny. That must not be undone.”

The Free Speech Union (FSU) paid for Coskun’s legal fees alongside the National Secular Society (NSS).

Welcoming the Bill, Lord Young of Acton, the director and founder of the FSU, said: “We’re helping Hamit Coskun appeal his conviction and we’re optimistic it will be overturned, but that’s a laborious, expensive process and it would be helpful if the law was clarified so the Crown Prosecution Service stops prosecuting people who protest against Islam or any other religion.”

You can donate to Hamit’s legal crowdfunder here.

The post Protect freedom to criticise Islam in law, MPs demand appeared first on The Free Speech Union.