A fresh survey has found that more than half of the British public believe their government only defends free speech when it aligns with its own political stance, raising fresh concerns about the impartiality of free speech protections under the current Labour administration.
The research, commissioned by civil liberties group Liberty and carried out by polling firm More in Common, shows that 54% of respondents think the government protects speech it agrees with while ignoring dissenting voices. The findings come amid heightened scrutiny of the government’s approach to protest rights, online expression, and the controversial proscription of activist groups.
Political fallout and policing concerns
The poll results were released shortly after police arrested several protesters affiliated with Palestinian Action outside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool. The group was designated as a proscribed organisation earlier this year, sparking debate over whether such measures stifle legitimate dissent.
Liberty has interpreted the timing as significant, suggesting that public concerns about inconsistent enforcement are being validated by recent events. The organisation warned that Prime Minister Andy Burnham risks being seen as presiding over a system where free speech is applied unevenly — echoing criticisms previously levelised at his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, who was nicknamed “Two-Tier Kier” over perceptions of politically motivated social media policing.
Public anxiety over equal treatment under law
p>Luke Tryl, director of More in Common, noted that worries about free speech transcend traditional party lines. “Concern about the ability to speak freely is something that crosses party lines,” he said. “Britons prize their ability to criticise the government, to express their views without legal or professional consequences, and to debate issues openly.”
In focus groups, Tryl added, participants across the political spectrum expressed fears that open dialogue is being eroded — whether due to legal restrictions, social pressure, or content moderation on digital platforms.
Among the public’s top concerns was the belief that free speech laws are not enforced consistently (cited by 29% of respondents). A further 26% worried that certain individuals enjoy greater freedom of expression than others. Notably, 22% of those surveyed expressed concern about arrests or investigations related to online speech, while 18% admitted feeling cautious about voicing opinions publicly — a figure that translates to nearly 10 million adults across Great Britain.
Government under fire for failing to defend free speech
Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, issued a direct challenge to the government, stating: “Fundamentally, selectively defending speech will not win anyone over. If anything, it does the complete opposite. It makes our society more polarised and our country more divided.”
She went on to urge the prime minister to take decisive action to restore public confidence in free speech protections. “Our message to the Government is clear: defend the principle of free speech across the political spectrum and show the real leadership needed on the issue.”
Civil liberties advocates argue that recent policies — including expanded protest restrictions, aggressive use of communications legislation, and the banning of activist organisations — have contributed to an environment of mistrust. These moves, they claim, contradict Labour’s pre-election promises to uphold democratic freedoms.
Why it Matters
This poll underscores a growing disconnect between public expectations and government practice when it comes to one of democracy’s most fundamental principles. With nearly 10 million people reporting self-censorship, and widespread scepticism about equal treatment under the law, the UK stands at a crossroads. How the government responds — particularly in terms of transparency, consistency, and accountability — could shape not only public trust but also the broader health of its democratic institutions. In an era where polarisation threatens civic cohesion, defending free speech impartially isn’t just a legal obligation — it’s a moral imperative.
