When you learn that the White House is keeping an eye on human rights violations in other countries, you probably imagine authoritarian regimes like those in Iran, China, or Burma. If I told you that it was the United Kingdom, only a small group of liberty-minded individuals might believe me. However, considering the critical state of free speech in Britain, it’s unsurprising that Donald Trump’s administration has expressed their concerns.
A representative from the U.S. State Department recently announced that the administration is monitoring the case of Lucy Connolly, a British woman who received a 31-month prison sentence in October last year due to a message she posted on social media. The announcement regarding Connolly comes just a month after the State Department issued a statement saying it was monitoring the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, one of five British pro-life activists who were arrested for silently protesting outside abortion clinics. Connolly’s tweet followed the horrific murder of three young girls in Southport, which led to widespread rioting across the country. Two weeks ago, the 42-year-old’s appeal was rejected by judges. She is currently not set for release until August.
Connolly vented her frustration on X a few hours after Axel Rudakubana’s frenzied knife attack. She sent the following message to her 9,000 followers: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f—ing hotels full of the bastards [meaning migrants] for all I care, while you’re at it, take the treacherous government politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Shortly after sharing her post, she started to feel remorse and opted to remove it a few hours later. By the time she took it down it had been seen 310,000 times and shared by several hundred individuals, some of whom took screenshots. She was arrested on August 6, charged with inciting racial hatred, and subsequently sentenced to prison.
While her post was certainly controversial—spurred by theories that the suspect was an immigrant—a long prison sentence for an inappropriate tweet is absurd. Vice President JD Vance correctly diagnosed this issue in a pathbreaking speech he delivered at the Munich Security Conference in February: free speech is in retreat across Europe.
In the U.K., we often punish people more severely for their words than their actions. As an illustration of how repressive Britain’s speech codes have become, Connolly’s sentence exceeds that of some individuals who committed physical violence in the Southport riots. Recently, a politician avoided prison after being captured on video punching a member of the public.
When Keir Starmer met with Trump in February, Vance expressed his concerns to the prime minister about the effects that tech regulation might have on free expression online. He had good reason to do so.
Due to the rapid growth of hate speech codes and communications laws, around 30 Britons are arrested daily for “offensive” speech online. Britain is a country where parents are arrested for criticizing their child’s school, Christian preachers are detained for mocking Islam or claiming that biological sex is real, and teenagers are imprisoned for making stupid comments online.
Now, with the introduction of the Online Safety Act—an extensive piece of legislation purportedly intended to protect young people—tech companies are required to ensure that “hateful” content is not accessible to children. Failure to comply may result in fines up to 10% of annual global revenue or imprisonment for their executives. The act empowers Ofcom, the state broadcasting regulator, to prevent these platforms from being accessible in the U.K. Consequently, GAB and BitChute, two video-sharing platforms, have terminated access for users in the United Kingdom.
When Bolt’s case was brought to the White House’s attention, it threatened to derail Britain’s long-anticipated trade agreement with the U.S. A source familiar with the negotiations indicated there would be “no free trade without free speech.” While many on the Labour-left have critiqued this as foreign interference in a sovereign state’s internal affairs, they would do well to check the record of Starmer’s party. While in opposition, the Labour Party suggested it should use trade deals to promote Labour values such as human rights, workers’ rights, equality, and climate change.
This is not a form of reactionary imperialism—it is a matter of practical politics. Trade deals are zero-sum and often require compromise. People, like goods, cross borders. There is a genuine possibility that Americans living overseas or visiting Britain could be affected by these authoritarian speech laws.
In this regard, Starmer should heed Marco Rubio’s intentions. When Secretary Rubio learned about Connolly’s case, he proposed a ban on all foreign state officials from visiting the U.S. who are involved in the restriction of Americans’ free speech.
While the United States has established a strong and enduring First Amendment, the United Kingdom is moving in the opposite direction. I fear Connolly’s case will set a dangerous precedent. Racial identitarians and progressive activists in America will look at the way the British state, armed with an elaborate and growing array of hate speech laws, suppresses, punishes, and silences dissent and may push for changes in legislation. In fact, this process has already begun. Figures such as Charles Murray and Brett Weinstein have faced cancellation or been forced out of their positions in academia for violating progressive orthodoxy.
To move forward Britain needs to scrap these draconian speech laws. Free speech is an indispensable liberty that should not be denied to anyone, no matter how “offensive” their beliefs and opinions. When it comes to trade, freedom of expression is the most precious commodity we can export.