The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion

If the government's proposals to tackle 'misinformation' became law, you may not have seen this coverage of the illegal immigration crisis from @PatrickChristys They want to force social media platforms to promote news sources they deem "trustworthy", which will mean demoting those they deem "untrustworthy". It's not hard to imagine which category GB News would fall into, particularly when they are also redefining 'misinformation' to include political dissent.

GB News @GBNEWS

10 hours ago

‘That is a mega dinghy live in action.’ GB News Presenter @PatrickChristys says every illegal migrant shown in the footage is now in the UK, and that French authorities did not approach the identified people smugglers. 📺 Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604

42 506 2K 24K 45

gbnews.com/opinion/free-s…

Westminster mandarins stripping people of their honours for social media comments. An honour, from a knighthood to an MBE, is often the pinnacle of the recipient's life — an award in recognition of years of service to a sector or community. The Free Speech Union exposed the true nature of a shadowy cabal operating at the heart of Whitehall — the Forfeiture Committee — thanks to a Freedom of Information request sent by member Nick Buckley MBE. Secret guidance obtained through the FOI request revealed that the Forfeiture Committee, based in the bowels of the Cabinet Office and chaired by Dame Sarah Healey DCB CVO, can remove people's honours for their perfectly lawful comments posted on social media. The committee itself says the quiet part out loud. The guidance states that so-called "hate incidents" — lawful comments that "cannot be prosecuted" — could very well result in someone having their honour removed. This revelation comes as Big Brother Watch's new report exposes that 62,199 people have been arrested over the course of the last five years for "speech offences", including viewing TikToks. These incidents include cases where "the victim or anyone else thinks [the incident] was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on one of five prescribed characteristics — disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation." In short, you could have your honour taken away because a group of unelected officials do not like your lawful expressions of your worldview. Lord Young has warned that these sinister, censorious criteria would make people "think twice" before they accept an honour, because it could impede their ability to speak and think freely. An honour should not be used as a stick to beat people into subscribing to prevailing progressive orthodoxies, or indeed as a muzzle. It should not be weaponised — as it invariably is — to punish those on the political right who wish to speak out on mainstream hot-button topics. Read more from FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson writing for @GBNEWS 👇

I'll be speaking at the Battle of Ideas with @acadofideas next month about whether we should tolerate the intolerant, and how diversity has destroyed liberty in Britain. That's the theme of my book, 'Island of Strangers: Diversity, Decline and Free Speech in Crisis' which is out now. (Link below.)

Academy of Ideas @acadofideas

23 hours ago

THURSDAY will be the LAST DAY to buy EARLY-BIRD tickets for the 2026 BATTLE OF IDEAS... 120+ SESSIONS, 400+ SPEAKERS, 3500+ ATTENDEES 📅17&18 OCTOBER 📍London, Westminster Conversations for the public, with the public, in public... LINK👇

1 25 42 54K 7

Our General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, just made a speech at the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill which will lower the voting age to 16. He pointed out that if 16 year-olds are to be given the vote, a blanket ban on under-16s accessing social media doesn't make sense since platforms like TikTok are where 12-15 year-olds get their news. How can they be expected to make an informed choice about who to vote for when they reach the age of 16 if they've been banned from those sites? And what about the content that social media platforms are currently age-gating at the behest of Ofcom, such as Katie Lam's speech in the House of Commons about the grooming gangs, which you cannot watch on social media unless you prove you're an adult? It makes no sense to prevent 16 and 17 year-olds from being able to watch speeches in the House of Commons if they're going to be given the vote. The solution, according to Lord Young, is to activate the 'keep up' duties in the Online Safety Act so social media companies cannot remove content of democratic importance (s17), news publisher content (s18) and journalistic content (s19). While all the 'take down' duties in the Online Safety Act have been activated, many of the free speech safeguards in the Act have not. When Ofcom finally gets round to activating those duties, he concluded, it should make it clear to social media platforms that people of all ages — particularly 16 and 17 year-olds — should be able to access that vital democratic content. Watch Lord Young below 👇

68 out of 532 Crown courtrooms are not sitting today. That is 13 per cent. The former Justice Secretary, David Lammy, spearheaded plans to slash our ancient right to trial by jury, claiming that was the only way to bring down the backlog of 80,000 cases in the Crown Court. He did this despite having no credible evidence to support him. In fact, the Institute for Government's own research has shown that these reforms would save only 2 per cent of Crown Court time, not the 20 per cent Lammy promised. While Andy Burnham has sacked Lammy, called jury trials a "lynchpin of a fair society," and hinted he could ditch these sinister reforms, the proposals are still in the Courts and Tribunals Bill making its way through Parliament. FSU research has shown that those charged with speech-related offences are almost twice as likely to be acquitted in a Crown Court with a jury as in a magistrates' court without one. Put simply, if Lammy's plans get through, more people will be banged up for exercising their right to free speech. We cannot let that happen.

It is now clear that the Government almost certainly allowed extremists to help draft its Islamophobia definition — now repackaged as "anti-Muslim hostility". The Free Speech Union exposed, at the start of the year, that all five members of the Working Group tasked with drafting the definition had troubling links to organisations associated with Islamist extremism, including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND. It has now been revealed that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has deleted all responses to the Working Group's consultation. Why would the department delete all the submissions if it had nothing to hide? Did extremists influence the definition? Did ministers direct officials to delete all evidence, contrary to Government data policy? The Shadow Justice Secretary wrote to Angela Rayner over a month ago. She is yet to reply. Angela Rayner must come clean. The public deserves to know the truth.

Nick Timothy MP @NJ_Timothy

20 hours ago

Labour almost certainly allowed extremists to help draft their “Islamophobia” definition. But they deleted the evidence. Ministers still refuse to say who took part. I wrote to Angela Rayner demanding full transparency over a month ago. She has not bothered to reply.

217 2K 7K 166K 166

The government is using confected evidence to justify controlling what you see on social media. Remember when they asked you not to share the video of a Sudanese man allegedly attempting to behead a local man in Belfast? So many on the left think the primary cause for social discontent, the rise of new parties on the right and civil unrest among the native population is Elon Musk polluting their minds with 'misinformation' and 'false narratives'. They think so little of British people that they fail to consider that perhaps we can just see what is going on around us. Alternatively, that is exactly what they fear.

The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion

21 hours ago

"It's yet another thing the Government seems to be trying to do under our noses and think that we will not notice." The Government is spreading misinformation about misinformation in order to justify mass censorship on social media. The argument that mis- and disinformation is

47 800 2K 69K 166

The Government is planning new censorship laws that would amount to the toughest peacetime curbs on free speech since Charles I, who tried something similar that didn't end well. Most of what we're being told to justify this is false. Read about it here: freespeechunion.org/publications/m…

Labour's online censorship plan to force social media companies to promote the BBC and other 'trustworthy' news outlets and demote the rest is not based on evidence, according to a new report by David Rose for the FSU. dailysceptic.org/2026/09/14/lab…

Free speech is on life support in the UK. Over the course of the last five years, 62,199 people have been arrested for speech offences. Out of that, 20,000 were charged and 12,000 convicted. While these figures from Big Brother Watch's new report may appear startling, the Free Speech Union knows just how grave the threat to free speech is in the UK. What the report also shows is that there is a postcode lottery when it comes to free speech in this country. The Free Speech Union has successfully sued three police forces for their infringement of citizens' free speech rights. The FSU sued the Met Police for the wrongful arrest of Irish comedian Graham Linehan after five armed police officers arrested him as he landed at Heathrow Airport for three lawful gender-critical tweets. The Met Police were then forced to issue a public apology and pay Graham £25,000 in compensation. When Julian Foulkes posted on social media about the rise of antisemitism in the UK, Kent Police turned up at his door. With the help of the FSU, Kent Police were forced to pay him £20,000. One of the most egregious cases the Free Speech Union has seen is that of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine. They were arrested by half a dozen police officers after they criticised their daughter's school in a private WhatsApp group. They spent eleven hours in police custody. Once again, the FSU stepped in, and Hertfordshire Constabulary were forced to pay £20,000 in compensation to the couple. The Free Speech Union's message is clear and simple: police our streets, not our tweets. @SpeechUnion is backing @BigBrotherWatch’s call on the Government for Andy Burnham to launch an independent review into speech laws and police training. A free speech reset is needed now. Watch FSU Campaigns Officer @MaxHThompson 👇

freespeechunion.org//publications/…

telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/09/1…

Ministers want social media platforms placed under broadcast-style duties of "accuracy and balance" before elections, forcing government-approved "trustworthy" news into every feed while demoting everything else. Barely noticed by opposition or media, this is the most restrictive speech-control regime since Charles I. The justification: that algorithms engineered to monetise outrage now threaten democracy itself. Repetition has made this narrative feel like fact. The evidence says otherwise. A 2024 Nature review led from the University of Michigan found exposure to misinformation is low on average and concentrated among a small fringe who actively seek it out. "Untrustworthy" sites made up under 6% of news visits; "fake news" was roughly 0.15% of the average American's media diet. A 2023 Science experiment switched off Facebook and Instagram algorithms for tens of thousands of users. After three months, no measurable change in political attitudes, and the algorithms served less untrustworthy content than a plain chronological feed. None of this appears in the Government Office for Science review commissioned to justify the crackdown. Its claim that algorithms are "exclusively" profit-driven rests on a single 2025 paper from a small private Indonesian institution ranked outside the world's top 12,000 universities. A freedom of information request revealed the review cost taxpayers just under £500,000. Even the word "misinformation" is being stretched to cover dissent: questioning net zero timelines, heat pump efficiency, or electric vehicle claims now counts. The US Embassy has formally objected, warning that boosting "government-preferred media" would not be meaningfully different from removing disfavoured speech. In 1637, Charles I's Star Chamber controlled the presses. Now it is platforms. He failed. As David Rose writes, “Charles I also hoped to stifle opposition and, of course, he failed. Now we are being asked to accept analogous curbs on free speech based on terrifying claims that are undermined by evidence the Government ignores”. This Government is peddling misinformation about misinformation, and we will all suffer for it. Read more from FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK In @Telegraph 👇

youtu.be/OdrSe8gHsxk?is…

“The things I learnt at Warwick Speak Easy, I believe, helped me develop as a person, rather than just my knowledge”. On the third instalment of our limited Student Specials series, FSU Education and Engagement Officer Vinay Kapoor sits down with Alkmini Louiziou. Alkmini has just completed her law degree at Warwick and served as Co-President of Warwick Speak Easy, a free speech society Vinay founded when he was a student there, supported by the Ian Mactaggart Programme. Vinay and Alkmini discuss what happens to your thinking when everyone around you already agrees with you, whether their generation can hear arguments it disagrees with without taking offence, and why so many students hold back from saying what they think. Alkmini says that it is not possible to learn in an echo chamber, and that by attending Warwick Speak Easy, she learnt more than she did in her degree. During her time as President of Warwick Speak Easy, Alkmini lists her highlights as seeing Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) speak, as well as interviewing @PeterTatchell. The Ian Mactaggart Programme, a grant-giving programme administered by the Free Speech Union, has supported the society since 2023, and made the experience for Alkmini feel like she was part of a start-up. Alkmini, who is from Greece, also reflects on how disagreement seems to come more naturally at home, and asks Vinay whether one can really separate an idea from the person who holds it, and where free speech in Britain is heading. Watch the full episode on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

Labour almost certainly allowed extremists to help draft their “Islamophobia” definition. But they deleted the evidence. Ministers still refuse to say who took part. I wrote to Angela Rayner demanding full transparency over a month ago. She has not bothered to reply.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/09/1…

freespeechunion.org//publications/…

🚨👀 NEW FSU BRIEFING: Misinformation about Misinformation The British Government is preparing an apparatus of internet censorship without precedent in the modern era. The Orwellian DCMS Green Paper proposes forcing social media algorithms to favour "trustworthy" state-approved sources. Labour's Lucy Powell wants platforms under broadcast-style duties of "accuracy and balance" during elections. The Government Office for Science wants a state-linked database of "false and misleading narratives" and official "prebunking" in schools. None of this fell from the sky. It is the demand of a lobby, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, co-founded by Sir Keir Starmer's former Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, and the Foreign Office-funded Global Disinformation Index, whose members then sat as "expert" reviewers marking their own homework on the evidence for the policy they demanded. That review cost taxpayers almost half a million pounds. It relied on AI-generated summaries of two hundred and twenty-eight papers nobody read, contained no climate scientist, economist, clinician, or epidemiologist, and grounded its central claim, that algorithms are "exclusively profit- and engagement-driven", on a single AI-synthesised paper from an institution ranked ten thousand three hundred and seventieth in the world. The real evidence contradicts the panic. A Science study found flagged vaccine misinformation on Facebook drew just 0.3% of 2.7 billion views, while unflagged, accurate content had forty-six times the impact on hesitancy. A Nature synthesis put "fake news" at roughly 0.15% of the average American's media diet. Twitter's own researchers found no evidence of algorithmic bias toward extremes. Only 33% of adults think the BBC, the state's model of trustworthiness, is impartial. Under this regime, questioning heat pump efficiency or electric vehicle range counts as "misinformation." Whoever controls the label controls the debate. Britain has not seen anything like this since the Star Chamber licensing decrees of 1637 under King Charles I. Milton's answer still stands: let truth and falsehood grapple, for truth's confuting is the best and surest suppressing. Read the new report from FSU Director of Policy and Research @DavidRoseUK 👇