|
|||||
Comparing the Adam Smith Institute’s and the Prosperity Institute’s free speech proposalsThe inimitable Preston Byrne has compared two think tank proposals for restoring free speech within the United Kingdom in A Tale of Two Bills: Comparing the Adam Smith Institute’s and the Prosperity Institute’s Free Speech Proposals. This kind of thing is an essential part of setting the intellectual ground work for the future. July 15th, 2026 |
 11 comments to Comparing the Adam Smith Institute’s and the Prosperity Institute’s free speech proposalsLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Both proposals are good – but the Adam Smith Institute one does seem to be better.
The ASI proposal, it will be argued, runs against the Sir William Blackstone doctrine that there are no rights against Parliament (Blackstone de facto rejected the principles of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, the great enemy of Sir Francis Bacon, and Sir John Holt – Chief Justice from 1689, Bill of Rights, to 1710) – although, technically, it does NOT – as it is itself an Act of Parliament that could be repealed by another Act of Parliament.
The censorship of the theatre by an Act of Parliament passed at the request by Prime Minister (the first Prime Minister) Sir Robert Walpole shows that only a few decades after Sir John Holt left the bench – Parliament could not be trusted not to violate fundamental liberties – so this is hardly a matter of “Blair” destroying a wonderful unwritten Constitution. Attacks on other fundamental liberties, such as the right to keep and bear arms (cited in the 1689 Bill of Rights) date back more than a century now – so are clearly not the fault of “Blair” either.
The Prosperity Institute proposal calls for the repeal of various existing Acts of Parliament, but does not do much to deal with the various other ways the state attacks Freedom of Speech.
Sadly neither proposal has any chance of being passed – at-the-moment, but the authors know that – they are hoping for a radically different Parliament after the next General Election.
I remember some years ago the establishment (including the Speaker of the House of Commons) celebrating the anniversary (I think it was the 50th anniversary) of the 1965 Race Relations Act – it should be remembered that this Act was NOT in response to “Jim Crow” legislation in Britain – as no such legislation existed in Britain in 1965 – or-had-ever-existed-here.
The attacks on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association (which must include the liberty to NOT associate) in the 1965 Act (made vastly worse by a series of later Acts going up to the Equality Act of 2010) were not justified by trying to “counter balance” previous “Jim Crow” legislation, as already stated there-had-never-been such “Jim Crow” legislation in Britain, it was partly an imitation of the 1964 American Civil Rights Act (although this Act did NOT attack Freedom of Speech), and partly an outburst of Collectivist doctrine – one of so many.
As for the argument that “extreme” speech that “promotes hatred” should be banned – if this principle is accepted, than any opinion the establishment does not like will, eventually, be called “extreme” and will be declared to “promote hatred”.
Do most of the British people support fundamental liberties, such as Freedom of Speech (i.e. the right to voice opinions the establishment does-not-like – no one has to listen to such opinions, but there should be a right to express them) or do most British people now define “freedom” in terms of dyeing their hair various colours, getting tattoos and having various piercings?
I do not know. There has been, for a long time now, an establishment campaign (and it has been an establishment campaign – although disguised as ANTI establishment) to redefine freedom in this way – and in terms of “sex, drugs and rock-and-roll”, with people saying they believe in freedom – but reacting with horror to the idea of Freedom of Speech, and practically fainting over the very idea of a right, indeed a moral duty, to have the means by which to defend one’self, one’s family, and other persons – including innocent strangers, and including defending persons from unjust attacks by the state. I do not know how effective this campaign of indoctrination has been.
Yes indeed adults should be allowed to dye their hair, get tattoos and piercings, and engage in the various activities that have been promoted since the 1960s – but liberty does include fundamental principles (such as Freedom of Speech), it is not just about getting blind drunk and rolling in one’s own vomit in the gutter – which is the view of freedom (liberty) that the establishment (pretending to be anti establishment) has promoted for a long time.
Someone addicted to booze or drugs, and suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, rolling about in their own vomit in the gutter, is no threat to the establishment – indeed such a person depends on the establishment for their income (their food) and for medical care, and on the establishment in terms of care in their old age (if they live that long) – as they are unlikely to have a family, children born into a stable family who will look after them in their old age.
But someone who is calm and sober and expresses opinions the establishment does not like, is a threat to the establishment – which is why the establishment seeks to corrupt, or to crush, such people.
When did the establishment become like this? Well it has been a gradual process, it did not happen all-at-once, but the corruption of the establishment goes back longer than most people think – it was well underway long before Prime Minister Blair.
In my completely uneducated opinion, Magna Carta cannot be changed by parliament. To the best of my knowledge, its classed as a peace treaty between the crown andcthe barons/people. That is the form a bill of rights should take.
An excellent way to get discussion going about how we dig ourselves out of this mess. Thanks for sharing.
This ought to be forwarded to Toby Young at the FSU, assuming it hasn’t been already. (Full disclosure: I am a Free Speech Union member and financial supporter.)
A cynic – not I, of course – might read these as very detailed and well-thought-out plans for re-arranging the deck chairs after the iceberg has been sighted.
In both your society and mine, there are several gross steps that need to begin before there is any point to developing a new intellectual ground for protecting or re-establishing what has been intentionally discarded.
What chance would either bill stand today, on either side of the Atlantic?
I disagree, this needs to happen right now or very different voices will be leading the opposition to where we are, ones far more focused on very different legitimate grievances to the exclusion of all else. Right now is the time to start associating a structure of constitutional liberty as standing in opposition to repressive blob or we end up swapping one nightmare for a different one.
In the UK, the formation of a viable alternative political vehicle, Reform, has now happened, so there is everything to play for.
None but so what? This is ground work for what needs to be a coming revolution, ideally a peaceful one but whatever.
Stuart Noyes.
You are standing against Sir William Blackstone, i.e. his doctrine that Parliament can do anything it likes – rip up Magna Carta, declare that having blue eyes is a “crime” punishable by death, censor the theatre (which it did in Blackstone’s own time) and-so-on.
And you are standing with Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke (the great enemy of Sir Francis Bacon – and opponent of the unlimited power of the King AND the unlimited power of Parliament – for example the 1610 judgement concerning Doctor Bonham, opposes both) and Chief Justice Sir John Holt – Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710, very much the essence of the Glorious Revolution.
I stand with you Sir – although, alas, as I am old and weak – I am not likely to be of much use on a battlefield.
Sadly we have, perhaps, the worst Parliament we have every had in the history of this nation – and (another tragedy) modern judges are often not learned in the principles of natural justice (natural law), to put the matter mildly.
As for the United States – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr despised (had contempt for) the philosophical (natural law – natural justice – limited government) principles of the United States Constitution (indeed he was a friend of Harold Laski – a person that even socialist Prime Minister Atlee had to distance himself from, declaring that the doctrines of Professor Laski did not represent the policies of the Labour Party government – even though Professor Laski was Chairman of the Labour Party).
Oliver Wendell Holmes jr took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States – and that oath is not consistent with him despising the foundations of that Constitution (which he did).
People, including judges, can not be trusted to uphold principles they despise.
“You are demanding an ideological test” – yes-I-am, and so should anyone else.
In case anyone mentions the war service of Oliver Wendell Holmes jr – I do not deny it, including him being wounded three times.
This does not alter the fact that his ideas were wrong and harmful – indeed it highlights it.
For example, if there is objective moral right and moral wrong, which Oliver Wendell Holmes jr declared, then SLAVERY can not be morally wrong, because nothing is morally wrong – other than as matter of fashion, indeed slavery had existed in almost all societies for thousands of years.
Why kill 600 thousand people (more people than in all other American wars put together), out of a population a small fraction of what it is today, to end slavery if slavery is not really morally wrong – if it is just a matter of fashions having changed.
But then he could reply that it is not morally wrong to kill 600 thousand people – because nothing is morally wrong.
No wonder he was a friend of Professor Harold Laski.
I meant to type if there is NO objective moral right and moral wrong, which seems to have been the position of Oliver Wendell Holmes jr, then SLAVERY can not be morally wrong, because, according to this FALSE doctrine, nothing is morally wrong, and the Civil War can not be justified in basic moral terms – the deaths of 600 thousand people becomes a struggle over lines-on-a-map (not a moral cause – indeed an obscenity) especially odd as the United States was itself a secessionist polity – with George Washington and the others being secessionists.
It is profoundly disturbing that Oliver Wendell Holmes jr was appointed to the Supreme Court (by President Theodore Roosevelt – a man who despised the Constitution “to Hell with the Constitution, when the people need coal” and who was the only Republican President to support lynching – for example the hanging of some Italians without trial for their alleged crimes), when Oliver Wendell Holmes jr opposed the basic principles upon which the Constitution of the United States was based (even natural law, natural justice, itself).
It is more disturbing that he is a much cited “Justice” – both in the United States and the United Kingdom.
It is no good having a wonderful Bill of Rights if it is placed in the hands of judges who do not support it. Who think that government is there to “help the people” and, therefore, do not support limits on government power – not even, really, freedom of contract (the basis of the case of Dr Bonham – the ruling of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke way back in 1610).
That way, no real limits on government power, one gets such things as “Civil Asset Forfeiture” and other obscenities.
Ive browsed The Freedom Association and Kato institute. Most conservative organisations believe in limited government. Yet the UK has no written codified constitution. We have unlimited government. Our constitution can be changed by any government with a simple majority. Fixed term parliament. No fixed term parliament. Entry to a political union with supremacy within its conferred powers. Devolution for some nations but not all. The West Lothian abomination.
You do not put a fox in charge of the hen house. Jefferson spoke of wolves when referring to European politicians. We are governed by wolves.
So our wolves need muzzling. We need a safety fence to protect us. Since we have no written constitution and to create one would be very progressive, we need to look at our history. I believe a treaty needs to be drafted. A treaty that limits government. Freedom of speech. Jury trial. Habias Corpus. In fairness, nothing new. A declaration that the source of political sovereignty is the people. A document to confer the legal powers of parliament.
I could go on but maybe someone will catch my drift.