Despite the formal guarantee of freedom of expression and speech, it has become increasingly dangerous to speak on unpopular topics without risking one’s life in defence of personal convictions. The recent assassination of American political commentator Charlie Kirk, now regarded by many as a political martyr, and the arrest of dozens in the UK for participating in anti-migrant protests or making critical remarks, are stark reminders of the fragility of our political freedoms.

By Farid Shukurlu
What was once considered a cornerstone of human development is on the verge of becoming a taboo subject in contemporary political discourse. It is a discussion we may try to avoid, but one we must confront if we are to protect our right to think, express, and speak freely.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental principle found in many constitutions. The United States (US) Constitution stands out, as its First Amendment continues to face challenges in today’s polarised world.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment connects freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. Speech is the most common tool of expression, enabling individuals to express their concerns verbally and in writing. Yet, the rise of extremist ideologies and hate speech in the West has raised questions about the limits of free speech.

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017 highlighted this tension. White supremacists, including those who openly promoted hate speech and racist ideologies, marched with swastikas and antisemitic chants, acts protected under the First Amendment.

The event turned violent, and a counter-protester was murdered in a vehicle-ramming attack. Although the perpetrator received a life sentence, organisers such as Richard B. Spencer faced no trial. Spencer’s attempt to speak at the University of Florida also tested the boundaries of free speech. Denied permission at first, he threatened to sue the university for violating his rights. The university eventually allowed the event, showing how constitutional freedoms can protect even hateful language.

Freedom of opinion differs slightly, as it guarantees individuals the right to hold beliefs without interference. It ensures people can form political or scientific views without fear of restriction.

In the United Kingdom (UK), this right is protected under the Human Rights Act, which allows citizens to “hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” This provision is based on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and reinforces equal protection for all.

The UK’s record on human rights contrasts with regimes that suppress dissent. Undemocratic governments often target media outlets and critics, sometimes through imprisonment or assassination.

The case of Jamal Khashoggi is a clear example. A Saudi journalist critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), Khashoggi wrote on Saudi involvement in radicalism and the misuse of power. His assassination in Turkey in 2018, allegedly ordered by the Saudi regime, violated not only his right to life but also the principle of free opinion. He became a symbol for those silenced by authoritarian regimes that deny their citizens fundamental freedoms.

Both freedom of expression and freedom of opinion remain vital. The US and UK, as beacons of free expression, show how these rights can be safeguarded. However, the examples of Charlottesville and Khashoggi prove that they are fragile. Protecting them is essential for the survival of open and fair societies.

However, this safe mechanism of expressing one’s opinion freely has now been abused by Britain’s own political class. Some reports suggest that an average of 30 arrests per day were made in the UK under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1  of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This misuse of freedom of expression is a cause for concern.

Most of those arrests were made for using offensive language. The question is, how can a developed society allow such lunacy even to happen? In 2023 alone, 12,000 such arrests occurred for simply expressing an opinion online or in a recorded setting.

For example, an online video of a British man saying, “I love bacon,” followed by his arrest, went viral on social media. Interestingly, the police officers who took him into custody appeared to insist on the offensive language used by the Englishman. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that led to the radicalisation of young minds in the West.

Looking at Charlie Kirk’s assassination, we can clearly see one side of the political spectrum failing to engage in dialogue and instead resorting to violence because it cannot tolerate political disagreement. Charlie was not a radical white supremacist; he was a man who stood up for the ideas he believed in.

He never used hate speech to justify his political ideology, unlike neo-Nazis such as Nick Fuentes and Richard B. Spencer, who openly brag about and promote the deaths of millions of innocent people while denying the worst atrocity in recorded human history: the Holocaust.

The problem with freedom of speech and opinion is not whether everyone should be allowed to express their beliefs, but rather determining where the line must be drawn. One of the best solutions to this issue is the “American way”.

While the First Amendment protects free speech, it also allows for the social condemnation and cancellation of those who promote racist ideas and incite violence. What is necessary is to protect the fundamental human freedom to think and to express rational ideas that foster development and progress.

Evidence indicates that states which safeguard freedom of opinion and expression tend to enjoy higher levels of happiness, democracy, and human development. The US and UK—both constitutional champions of free expression—consistently lead in innovation and intellectual achievement, from Nobel Prizes to industrial breakthroughs. Britain’s political liberties, for example, helped fuel the Industrial Revolution, proving how open debate fosters creativity and progress.