In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Head of Media and Linda Whetstone Scholar Reem Ibrahim interviews Lord Toby Young, journalist, author, and founder of the Free Speech Union.
Very interesting interview. I sympathise with Toby for having to face those who chased him over his views as he described. And so the free speech question is a raw one for him as it is now for others who have to face or perpetrate such instances now. I somewhat agree with Toby’s analysis on Labour and Starmer’s use of laws to clamp down. His description of their fear of the right makes them overreact is a view I can accept. …. It’s a real dilemma this line. I personally don’t accept the US version of allowing free speech. It gives no credence to our more accepting view of calmness. Their say anything because you can attitude is not my happy place. But in the other hand, sending armed police to arrest someone over a tweet is in my view overreach. So I agree in some sort of line being set. The internets ability to corrupt young minds directly into their bedrooms is for instance a need for protection and laws. So yes, there had to be a line. But in the absence of an arbitration expert giving the ok in advance of saying something non offensive or unlawful as supposed to lawful and acceptable then we are left with the system we have if saying something and seeing a test if what was said in a court. Which is I’m wholly satisfactory either. The point is level of hate if harm. And that’s where the line gets blurred. Legislation is poor. It’s vague and in that fails us all. We are therefore left with the obvious choice of, choosing your words carefully or not at all. Which is also unacceptable. Or perhaps the law should be more clear on not free speech as much as a right to hear? You both touched on this when you described the need to hear so we know who are the Nazis. So yes it’s also the right to hear and to know that may override some of the questions raised under breeches of free speech. All that said, we all need clarity. What can we say or do must be priority. Not a day and see attitude that forces those who want to test the line to raise up and speak. There is the question of Police. I have long held the view that over many years but in particular, when May was Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to criticise and castigate the Police at a congress I seem to remember. I thought then that, that was a wrong move. And since then the Police have been underfunded and chested to do more. This mix of pressure and criticism I think, has led them to z as sort of work to rule. To do the overreach you describe. To more or less inflame and embrace those laws they obviously don’t want to keep at a low profile. I can’t help thinking it’s their only way to be political. To push those boundaries too far just to show up government policy. I wonder if Toby thinks that too? Is the Police making their own statement in this overreach of arrests. We face so much underfunding. The judiciary and the prison service the whole system is being expected to do more for less. And that’s why I personally want to see a better economic answer first. So everything can finally be funded properly. But we can’t even fix potholes. And our police are expected to police the internet now too. It’s all unfair due to underfunding. Also politicians are not clever. Or maybe too clever for their and our good. But that’s true in every walk of life. But we need to listen carefully to those who have a better way to get things right. That isn’t the Right or the Left it’s just getting the line right expectations right and outcomes right. That’s cross party and if not should be. After all it’s the spirit of the laws that are paramount. Not a partisan view or a political view from those who shouldn’t be asked to have to make one.
Very interesting interview. I sympathise with Toby for having to face those who chased him over his views as he described. And so the free speech question is a raw one for him as it is now for others who have to face or perpetrate such instances now. I somewhat agree with Toby’s analysis on Labour and Starmer’s use of laws to clamp down. His description of their fear of the right makes them overreact is a view I can accept. …. It’s a real dilemma this line. I personally don’t accept the US version of allowing free speech. It gives no credence to our more accepting view of calmness. Their say anything because you can attitude is not my happy place. But in the other hand, sending armed police to arrest someone over a tweet is in my view overreach. So I agree in some sort of line being set. The internets ability to corrupt young minds directly into their bedrooms is for instance a need for protection and laws. So yes, there had to be a line. But in the absence of an arbitration expert giving the ok in advance of saying something non offensive or unlawful as supposed to lawful and acceptable then we are left with the system we have if saying something and seeing a test if what was said in a court. Which is I’m wholly satisfactory either. The point is level of hate if harm. And that’s where the line gets blurred. Legislation is poor. It’s vague and in that fails us all. We are therefore left with the obvious choice of, choosing your words carefully or not at all. Which is also unacceptable. Or perhaps the law should be more clear on not free speech as much as a right to hear? You both touched on this when you described the need to hear so we know who are the Nazis. So yes it’s also the right to hear and to know that may override some of the questions raised under breeches of free speech. All that said, we all need clarity. What can we say or do must be priority. Not a day and see attitude that forces those who want to test the line to raise up and speak. There is the question of Police. I have long held the view that over many years but in particular, when May was Home Secretary, she took it upon herself to criticise and castigate the Police at a congress I seem to remember. I thought then that, that was a wrong move. And since then the Police have been underfunded and chested to do more. This mix of pressure and criticism I think, has led them to z as sort of work to rule. To do the overreach you describe. To more or less inflame and embrace those laws they obviously don’t want to keep at a low profile. I can’t help thinking it’s their only way to be political. To push those boundaries too far just to show up government policy. I wonder if Toby thinks that too? Is the Police making their own statement in this overreach of arrests. We face so much underfunding. The judiciary and the prison service the whole system is being expected to do more for less. And that’s why I personally want to see a better economic answer first. So everything can finally be funded properly. But we can’t even fix potholes. And our police are expected to police the internet now too. It’s all unfair due to underfunding. Also politicians are not clever. Or maybe too clever for their and our good. But that’s true in every walk of life. But we need to listen carefully to those who have a better way to get things right. That isn’t the Right or the Left it’s just getting the line right expectations right and outcomes right. That’s cross party and if not should be. After all it’s the spirit of the laws that are paramount. Not a partisan view or a political view from those who shouldn’t be asked to have to make one.