Almost everybody in Western society with more than two brain cells to rub together supports freedom of speech. Or so they say.
Blasphemers might be sentenced to death in Islamic states, and the internet might be censored to death in China. But in the UK, US and elsewhere in the West, we still enjoy freedom of expression. Or so we think.
So how is it then that, everywhere from Twitter to television, from the theatrical stage to the football stand, in student bars and in serious debates, free speech is under siege? It seems that our hard-won historic liberty is often being given up without a serious fight, and even offered up for sacrifice.
This glaring gap between the apparently widespread support for free speech in principle, and the evident lack of it in practice, is what prompted me to start my forthcoming book on the new free-speech wars. It is clear that many who claim to support it are only paying lip service to the principle. In reality what they support is not free speech but speech on parole, let out on licence as long as it promises to stick to their idea of the straight and narrow.
It’s time to cut through the posturing and sort the genuine supporters of free speech from the pretenders who would rather restrict the right to people like them. Perhaps we could try a quick test in relation to recent debates and controversies.
