Britain: does it need a First Amendment to protect free speech?

The Adam Smith Institute has released a compact but sweeping draft Free Speech Bill for the UK that aims to redraw the legal boundaries of expression. Birthed with help from American constitutional specialists, the proposal challenges many of the statutes and practices that have, critics say, quietly narrowed public debate in Britain.

The bill is intentionally bold: it would establish a clear, positive right to speak freely, narrow the grounds for criminal sanctions, and limit institutions — from regulators to employers — that currently police what people say. Supporters see it as a practical route to revive robust free speech protections modeled on the US First Amendment; opponents predict fierce pushback from a political establishment increasingly comfortable with speech controls.

Key provisions of the proposed Free Speech Bill

• Affirmative free-speech guarantee — The draft creates an explicit legal right to free expression, subject only to narrowly defined exceptions such as incitement to violence or criminal conduct.
• Limits on content-based restrictions — The bill would bar suppression of speech simply because it is offensive, shocking, insulting, blasphemous or causes emotional upset.
• Ban on compelled speech — Individuals could not be forced by the state or public bodies to express particular viewpoints.
• Reduced employer powers — Public and private bodies would face tighter limits when disciplining staff for off-duty comments, shrinking employers’ reach into employees’ private speech.
• Protection for online intermediaries — Website owners and platforms would be shielded from being treated as the publisher of every user contribution.
• Removal of vague criminal offences — Provisions such as section 127 of the Communications Act, which outlaws posting “grossly offensive” material online, would be repealed or curtailed.

How the bill would dismantle existing censorship tools

The draft targets a web of laws and administrative practices that have expanded enforcement of speech norms beyond traditional criminality. Its sponsors argue that simply proclaiming support for free speech is useless unless the legal props that enable censorship are taken down.

Rewriting the Communications Act and Public Order offences

At the center of reform lies the Communications Act and parts of the Public Order Act. The Communications Act’s vague criminal language has long been criticized for empowering prosecutions based on subjective notions of offensiveness. Under the new bill, such broad standards would not survive; criminal liability would be confined to clearly defined harms.

Ending “non-crime hate incident” records and chilling practices

Police recording of so-called non-crime hate incidents — reports that don’t amount to criminal conduct but label behavior as prejudicial — would be outlawed. Advocates say this practice chills speech by creating official records that can affect employment, housing and reputation even when no crime has occurred.

Protecting speech in public employment and licensing

The proposal would prohibit conditions on public employment, licenses or benefits that are contingent on particular opinions. In practice, this would make it harder for authorities to demand ideological conformity as a term of public service or state support.

Where European human-rights law fits in

The bill also seeks to reduce the reach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in ways that surprise some civil-liberties advocates. While many assume the ECHR is a bulwark for free expression, parts of its jurisprudence have supported significant restrictions. The draft would carve out space for stronger domestic protections distinct from ECHR case law, an approach likely to spark debate among human-rights lawyers.

American legal influence and the role of Preston Byrne

One striking aspect of the initiative is its transatlantic pedigree. American constitutional ideas, especially those inspired by the First Amendment, helped shape the draft. A notable contributor is attorney Preston Byrne, who has been active in contesting media regulation and Ofcom’s reach into content decisions affecting US-based platforms.

That American lawyers are investing effort in UK debates underscores growing international concern about Britain’s approach to speech regulation. For the bill’s proponents, importing First Amendment-style principles offers a tested model for limiting state interference and protecting a broad range of controversial expression.

Political opportunities and the shifting Overton window

Presenting this draft to the public is as much a political act as a legal one. By converting abstract principles into concrete legislative text, the Adam Smith Institute hopes to make free-speech reform a campaign issue rather than a theoretical argument.

• Political actors could seize the moment: A party or leader willing to promise strong speech protections would draw voters who resent state or employer intrusion into private expression.
• The spotlight would intensify on parties accused of authoritarian tendencies, particularly in debates about policing online content and workplace discipline.
• High-profile supporters, whether from across the political spectrum, could move the conversation from niche legal circles into mainstream political debate.

Practical obstacles and likely resistance

Despite its clarity, the Free Speech Bill faces steep political and cultural hurdles. The current governing class and many human-rights advocates are likely to resist changes that they see as removing tools to combat hate speech, harassment or disinformation. Regulators such as Ofcom, which have expanded their role in online content governance, would oppose restrictions on their remit.

Even if the bill cannot pass immediately, its publication aims to shift public opinion and policymaking toward firmer speech protections, reframing what counts as acceptable government regulation of expression.

Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of commercial law and a former Cambridge admissions officer.

You might also like:

• Graham Linehan arrest shows UK needs First Amendment-style free speech protections
• Workers’ right to private opinions threatened by employers: what to know
• UK Islamic blasphemy laws defeated in free speech victory
• Musk vs EU censorship: why his fight matters for free speech
• Mocking politicians in Germany: is it illegal?

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.