Here in the United States, we’re accustomed to pretty much saying whatever we’re thinking, thanks to one of the pieces of profound wisdom from our founders: The First Amendment. Free speech, after all, means that you should be free to climb up on a soapbox and say what’s on your mind. While it doesn’t guarantee you an audience, nor does it protect anyone from being offended by anything you might say.
It’s not that way everywhere in the world, and in recent years, the United Kingdom, which was once America, Original Recipe, has seen some unconscionable restrictions on speech put in place in recent years. But now we see a win for free speech in Britain, as a British subject, one Patrick Lee, has won his case in an employment tribunal to the effect that his criticism of Islam is protected speech.
That’s kind of a big deal for free speech in Britain.
Patrick Lee, 61, was found guilty of misconduct by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) last April over posts on X. After a four-year disciplinary process, he was banned from the professional body and ordered to pay nearly £23,000 in costs.
The trade body ruled that 42 of his posts that criticised Islam, including calling the Prophet Mohammed a “monster”, were “either offensive or inflammatory or both”, adding that 29 were “designed to demean or insult Muslims”.
But following an employment tribunal hearing, the actuary has won legal protection for his beliefs.
It is the first time a court has ruled that “Islam-critical” beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. Previous claimants had been told such views were not “worthy of respect in a democracy”.
That’s the thing about free speech: It doesn’t matter whether views are “worthy of respect.” There are plenty of American cranks on the internet whose views are not worthy of respect. But they have the right to express those views regardless.
Mr. Lee’s case isn’t the only such one working its way through the British legal system.
The decision follows a 2021 ruling that Maya Forstater’s gender-critical beliefs were protected under the same law.
Ms Forstater later won her discrimination claim and her case has reshaped public debate on gender ideology. Mr Lee, whose final hearing in February will decide whether his posts on X were an expression of his protected belief and whether the regulator discriminated against him, thinks his case could have a similar impact.
Could there be hope for Britain yet?
Read More: Irish Government Tells EU What It Can Do With Its Demand to Force ‘Hate Speech’ Laws on the Public
UK Cops Arrest Jewish Lawyer for ‘Antagonizing’ Pro-Palestinian Mob—by Wearing a Star of David
We should watch these things in Britain and the rest of Europe, because there are plenty of people right here in the United States who would love to pass laws banning “hate speech,” which they define as anything they disagree with. Our neighbor to the north has a perfectly awful record on this in recent years, and it’s sad how many American leftists point to Europe and Canada as some kind of example.
Free speech means that, yes, you have the right to insult people. There’s nothing in the First Amendment that recognizes anyone’s right to be free of speech that ticks them off or insults them. If I want to get up on a soapbox on a street corner and shout about a certain American politician being a “frothing, turbocharged son of a Bolivian vacuum-cleaner salesman,” then I have the right to do that. Free speech should, nay, must have only one restriction: Incitement to violence.
Maybe Britain is starting to come back around to that. I’m skeptical about that – but this, at least, is a win.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
