The Problem With A Regime The Criminalizes "Hate Speech"

“Hate speech.” The term calls to mind every sort of vile and disgusting insult and racial and ethnic slur. Who could possibly be in favor of allowing that? Large numbers of people instinctively assume that hateful statements, particularly those based on racial, religious or ethnic categories, must surely be illegal.

But here in the U.S., such statements in general are not illegal, and not subject to criminal prosecution. A couple of weeks ago, our Attorney General Pam Bondi was recorded on a podcast saying that “We will absolutely . . . go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech . . . . You can’t have that hate speech in the world in which we live.” I, among many others, pointed out that Ms. Bondi had badly mis-stated U.S. law on the subject. Our Supreme Court has drawn a line under the First Amendment that makes almost all “hate speech” constitutionally protected, short of incitement to imminent violence.

If you think that that line might not make sense, consider the alternative. Over in the UK, they have seen fit to criminalize “hate speech.” The main statute is the Public Order Act of 1986, with subsequent amendments. Relevant statutory text includes this:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if . . . he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred. . . .

Amendments from 2006 and 2008 extended the statute also to criminalize speech involving “stirring up hatred” regarding religion and sexual orientation.

With these statutes on the books, the UK is now reaping the consequences.

There is a fundamental difference between our “free speech” regime, and the British “hate speech” regime. Our right of free speech is a right of individuals against the government. It restricts the government as to what speech it can prosecute criminally. The “hate speech” regime now in force in the UK does the opposite: it empowers police and prosecutors to pick and choose whom they want to arrest and prosecute. Unfortunately no prosecution regime is ever completely objective or politically neutral, and thus inevitably “hate speech” ends up defined as most of the speech of our political adversaries, but never the speech of our allies. In today’s UK, that proposition is getting taken to absurd extremes.

Here a piece from Human Events on August 20. It describes an incident that arose when the site of a proposed new mosque in northern England attracted a group of demonstrators:

A 23-year-old man was arrested during a protest at the site of a proposed mosque on the edge of the Lake District after allegedly shouting “We love bacon” in a singsong voice, per the Telegraph. Police officers escorted the single father away from the demonstration, and he could face court action on charges of public disorder or racially aggravated conduct. . . .

The Muslim religion bans eating pork, and apparently the allegation is that saying “we love bacon” therefore “stirs up hatred” against Muslims.

A piece in the New York Post on August 19 describes the case of Lucy Connolly of Spofford. In July 2024 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children’s dance party in Southport, killing three children and injuring ten others. Within hours of the attack, Ms. Connolly published a tweet that stated “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” (It’s not clear from the source, LBC, whether the asterisks were in the original or were inserted by LBC.). It turned out that Mr. Rudakubana was born in Wales and was a UK citizen, although his parents are immigrants from Rwanda. Connolly quickly realized her mistake and deleted the tweet within three hours after posting; but police still showed up a week later to arrest her. Ms. Connolly then pled guilty and was sentenced to 31 months in prison for “publishing written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred,” an offense under [the Public Order Act] from 1986. In August 2025, Ms. Connolly was released after serving about 10 months of her sentence.

Or consider the case of Irish comedian Graham Linehan. In April 2025, while living in Arizona, Mr. Linehan published a tweet stating “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls." On September 1, Linehan traveled to the UK, and was greeted at Heathrow airport by some 5 policemen to arrest him. Linehan was promptly put on trial in Westminster Magistrate’s Court. I can’t find any word at this writing of whether he has yet been convicted or sentenced.

On the other side of the ledger, consider some of the things that are said regularly at mosques in the UK. In November 2023, in the immediate aftermath of the October 7 massacre, a British site called Talk TV put together a compilation of video clips of Muslim clerics speaking at various UK mosques. That compilation was then re-tweeted by British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson on October 2, 2025. The compilation includes only videos, but I have transcribed some excerpts:

• From a preacher said to be speaking at the Redbridge Islamic Center, Ilford: “Oh Allah, curse the Jews and the children of Israel. Oh Allah, curse the infidels . . . . Oh Allah, break their works, shake their feet, disburse and tear apart their unity, and ruin their houses and destroy their homes.”

• From a preacher said to be speaking in Birmingham: “Behind me the stones will speak and say, oh Muslim behind me there is a Yahudi, come and kill him.”

• No location or mosque is given for this one: “Oh God, hear our hearts regarding the usurping Jews and of every enemy of you and the Muslims. Oh God, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and don’t leave any of them alive. Oh God, our Lord, shake the ground beneath their feet and freeze the blood in their veins, make them captive to the Muslims.”

• And another one without a specific location or mosque given: “Oh revenger, revenge from the oppressive aggressor occupying Zionists. Oh Allah, shake the earth beneath them. Oh Allah, limit their number, kill them indiscriminately and do not leave any of them alive.”

The narrator of the Talk TV piece says that they have taken this information to the authorities, who say that they are investigating and will take appropriate action. However, here nearly two years later, there is no report of any prosecutions.

Robinson appends this comment to his retweet of Talk TV’s compilation: “Hate speech laws are only used against natives to silence them whilst our country is flooded & raped.” Sadly, he is right. The speech of the political enemies of the regime, even if seemingly innocuous, will be twisted to find “hateful” implicit connotations. Meanwhile, the speech of allies of the regime, no matter how hateful that speech may be or how explicitly calling for violence or even mass murder, will never be prosecuted.

Thank God for our First Amendment, and for a Supreme Court willing to uphold it.