If you’ve stayed with me this far, we can now clear something up.
If free speech in the UK didn’t emerge from Magna Carta — and it didn’t — then it wasn’t “invented” in a single moment at all. It arrived slowly, unevenly, and often by accident, shaped less by grand declarations and more by political conflict, religious struggle, and institutional convenience.
British free speech is not the product of a founding document.
It is the by-product of power learning to tolerate criticism — just enough of it, and no more than necessary.
Free speech in Britain began as parliamentary privilege
The earliest recognisable protection for speech in England wasn’t for the public at all — it was for Members of Parliament.
By the late medieval period, MPs increasingly argued that they could not advise the Crown honestly if they feared punishment for what they said. This culminated in parliamentary privilege, eventually formalised in the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared:
“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
This is important — and often misunderstood.
It didn’t establish free speech as a general right.
It established protected speech for legislators, inside a specific institution, for a specific purpose.
British free speech begins not as a universal liberty, but as a tool of governance.
Outside Parliament, speech remained tightly controlled
While MPs gained protection, ordinary people did not.
For centuries, English law treated speech primarily as something to be managed, not protected. Large areas of expression were criminalised or heavily constrained, including:
- Seditious libel (criticising the government or monarch)
- Blasphemy (criticising the Church)
- Obscene libel
- Heresy
- Scandalum magnatum (speech harming the reputation of the powerful)
Crucially, truth was not a defence in many of these offences. You could be punished not for being wrong, but for being disruptive.
The underlying assumption was simple:
Speech was dangerous unless it served order.
Printing didn’t liberate speech — it scared the state
The arrival of the printing press didn’t trigger an explosion of free expression. It triggered licensing, censorship, and control.
For much of the 16th and 17th centuries:
- Printers required licences
- Books were pre-approved
- Unauthorised presses were destroyed
- Authors and publishers were jailed
The infamous Licensing of the Press Act institutionalised prior restraint — the very thing modern free-speech advocates rail against.
When that Act finally lapsed in 1695, it wasn’t because Parliament embraced free expression in principle. It lapsed largely because:
- enforcement was costly
- censorship was becoming impractical
- political factions increasingly wanted freedom for themselves
Again: expansion by friction, not enlightenment.
The slow retreat from criminalising opinion
Over the 18th and 19th centuries, Britain began to chip away at speech offences — but always cautiously.
- Seditious libel wasn’t abolished until 2009
- Blasphemy offences survived until 2008
- Public order and morality laws continued to constrain expression
- Courts retained wide discretion to weigh speech against “order” and “decency”
At no point did Britain say:
“Speech is free unless explicitly prohibited.”
Instead, it said:
“Speech may be tolerated, provided it does not cross ill-defined lines.”
This is the pattern that persists.
The modern position: free speech as a qualified right
By the time we reach the late 20th century, Britain still has no free-standing, absolute right to free speech.
Instead, expression is finally formalised via Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated domestically through the Human Rights Act 1998.
But even here, the structure matters.
Article 10 protects expression — subject to:
- national security
- public safety
- prevention of disorder or crime
- protection of health or morals
- protection of reputation or the rights of others
Which means that, in the UK:
- speech is always something to be balanced
- never something presumed inviolable
- and always contingent on context
That is not a flaw.
But it is a choice — and one we rarely acknowledge openly.
So when people say “we have free speech in the UK”, what they really mean is something much narrower, much messier, and much more conditional than they realise.
In the next post we’ll have a look at what “Subject to” actually means from case histories in the UK, just so I can get – and hopefully you too – a better understanding of these potentially nebulous phrases.
Alas this means we will be entering a very dry desert of discussion and as such my tone may change for it.
Discover more from Hysnaps Politics, Gaming, Music and Mental Health
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
