The Government Office for Science has commissioned a report that should concern us all. It is framed as a document designed to help tackle the spread of “misinformation”, but what it really seeks to achieve is the neutralisation of independent thought. The report’s Orwellian proposals include “psychological inoculation”, “pre-bunking” and game-based “interventions” designed to steer the public towards state-approved political messages. It’s truly sinister. Full episode with Lord Young and @andrewdoyle_com is available on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

The police have been accused of press censorship over the case of the fantasist Cambridge professor Jason Arday. The Metropolitan Police investigated Times Higher Education reporter Jack Grove after he was accused of harassment for emailing Prof Arday a series of legitimate questions about his academic record. Arday, once hailed as Cambridge’s superstar academic, is now at the centre of a plagiarism row and has resigned. The Free Speech Union’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, has written to Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley seeking an explanation as to why the Met investigated Mr Grove at all. On Wednesday, the Met informed Mr Grove that it would be taking no further action. In his letter, Lord Young said: “Telling a journalist to stop making lawful inquiries of a public figure under investigation for potential professional misconduct is not safeguarding – it is press censorship, delivered over the telephone by an officer who appears not to have realised he was speaking to a journalist doing his job until Mr Grove told him so.” The Met also passed on a complaint by Prof Arday about fellow academic Prof David Harris of Plymouth Marjon University to Devon and Cornwall Police, but that force rightly refused to investigate. As Lord Young asks, why was Devon and Cornwall Police able to dismiss the complaint so quickly, while the Met took four months? The Met has some serious questions to answer. Academic freedom and a free press are two central pillars of our society. Read more in The Telegraph 👇

The Free Speech Union's General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, has written to Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley asking why his officers investigated journalist Jack Groves after Jason Arday filed a complaint against him for asking awkward questions about his PhD thesis. The police should not allow themselves to be enlisted by powerful figures trying to avoid legitimate scrutiny. Read Lord Young’s letter below 👇

“This is an attack on democracy.” On this week’s episode of the FSU Podcast, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, is joined by comedian and free speech campaigner @andrewdoyle_com. They discuss a little-noticed, government-commissioned report on misinformation and its implications for public debate. The report’s Orwellian proposals include “psychological inoculation”, “pre-bunking” and game-based “interventions” designed to steer the public towards state-approved political messages. It seeks to tackle so-called “misinformation” — what we would simply call the truth. One example cited in the report is the claim that Olympic boxer Imane Khelif is a man. Andrew Doyle and Lord Young also discuss: • Why Andrew and Graham Linehan are working from Arizona. • The Government’s plan to force social media platforms to give greater prominence to approved “trustworthy” news sources such as the BBC and Channel 4 News. Watch the full episode of the FSU Podcast 👇

📣🚨 NEW FSU PODCAST EPISODE OUT NOW! On this week’s episode of the FSU Podcast, comedian, author and commentator Andrew Doyle joins FSU General Secretary Lord Young to discuss a little-noticed, government-commissioned report on misinformation and its implications for public debate. The report’s Orwellian proposals include “psychological inoculation”, “pre-bunking” and game-based “interventions” designed to steer the public towards state-approved political messages. Essentially, the Government wants to train you how to think. In the episode, @andrewdoyle_com and Lord Young also discuss: • Why Andrew and Graham Linehan are working from Arizona • Government proposals in its green paper Watch This Space that would give greater prominence online to “trustworthy” news sources approved by the state, such as the BBC and Channel 4 News Watch the full episode on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Animal rights campaigner, Anneka Svenska, was visited at home by two police officers and told to accept a police record, attend an “online thinking” course, or face arrest following comments she made on social media about the incineration of beagles at a company that breeds the dogs for use in medical research. The police alleged that she had committed a crime under the Online Safety Act. Anneka refused to accept this “community resolution disposal”, which would have remained on her police record, and, after she engaged a lawyer, the case has now been dropped. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act was introduced by the last Conservative Government and made it a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison, to knowingly spread false information likely to cause harm. While the Bill was going through Parliament, the FSU warned it might be weaponised in this way to silence legitimate political speech. Anneka doesn’t believe the information she spread about the company was false. In fact, she has documentary evidence which she says substantiates her claims. Until the Online Safety Act was passed, the company unhappy about comments like this would have had to bring a defamation claim in the civil courts. Now, it seems, hurty words online can quickly become a police matter – and it seems that companies are now making criminal complaints as part of their brand protection strategies. If you are visited by the police for a speech matter, we’d urge you to take specialist legal advice before accepting any form of caution or submitting to a re-education course. Members of the Free Speech Union can ask for our help if they find themselves in a similar situation.

📣🚨 NEW FSU MEMBER TESTIMONIAL: Nick Buckley MBE Nick Buckley received an MBE for years of dedicated service to charity. He spent many years supporting young people across Greater Manchester and worked with homeless people for 15 years. He founded the charity Mancunian Way to tackle homelessness and help uncover child sexual exploitation. He has also stood as a parliamentary candidate. Last December, Mr Buckley received a letter from the Forfeiture Committee informing him that his MBE — awarded for his many years of service to the community — could be revoked because he had allegedly “brought the honours system into disrepute”. The Committee said this was due to a number of comments he had made on social media, which it considered to be “beyond political comment”, “racist” and “homophobic”. Mr Buckley was not informed that the Committee was meeting to consider removing his honour. However, when he was eventually given the opportunity to respond, he seized it. To defend his reputation and honour, Mr Buckley turned to the Free Speech Union for assistance. With the FSU’s help, he submitted detailed representations explaining why the Committee’s conclusions were flawed. In addition, the Free Speech Union’s General Secretary, Lord Young of Acton, wrote to the Head of the Honours and Memorialisation Secretariats at the Cabinet Office. In his letter, Lord Young highlighted the inconsistencies in Mr Buckley’s case. He pointed out that the threshold for stripping someone of an honour is intentionally high. The Government’s guidance states that forfeiture is generally appropriate where someone: • has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to more than three months’ imprisonment; • has been censured or struck off by a relevant regulatory or professional body for conduct directly relevant to the award of the honour; • has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (England and Wales), the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009; or • has been found, following a trial of the facts, to have committed a sexual offence listed in the legislation above. While many people may strongly disagree with Mr Buckley’s social media posts, it is clear that they came nowhere near meeting these criteria. His case raises broader questions about the consistent — or inconsistent — application of what constitutes bringing the honours system “into disrepute”. It appears Mr Buckley was singled out because of his views. The Committee has now written to Mr Buckley confirming that he can keep his honour. But this ordeal should never have happened. The Forfeiture Committee is a shadowy body operating within Whitehall. The Free Speech Union has dealt with a number of cases in which people who have devoted their lives to serving their communities have found their life’s work placed at risk because an obscure committee disapproved of their opinions or comments. The proposed Removal of Peerages Bill risks exacerbating this worrying trend. Time and again, we see those expressing mainstream concerns — such as about mass, uncontrolled migration — branded as “far-right” and becoming the target of vexatious complaints and therefore more likely to face punishment than those on the political left. The Forfeiture Committee and the Removal of Peerages Bill risk being weaponised to silence dissenting voices that do not conform to prevailing progressive orthodoxies. The Free Speech Union is proud to have been able to help Mr Buckley retain his honour. Watch @NickBuckleyMBE’s testimonial below — and become a member of the Free Speech Union. 👇

“Therapists do no favours for their clients if they affirm delusion.” On the latest episode of the FSU Podcast, @_ConnieShaw interviews campaigner and therapist @JamesEsses. The Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill is so broadly and poorly drafted that it could criminalise the well-intentioned conversations parents, therapists and religious leaders have with gender-confused children. The bill goes beyond sexuality and once again introduces the concept of gender identity into our legislative framework. James argues that the wording of the bill could put therapists like him at risk of prosecution. The same goes for parents. If a parent refuses to use their child’s preferred pronouns or does not allow them to pursue puberty blockers or other irreversible medical interventions, they could also face up to five years in prison. Watch the full episode of the podcast on the FSU YouTube channel 👇

We can’t say we’re shocked that Andy Burnham has sacked Bridget Phillipson as Education Secretary. One of her first acts as Secretary of State was to torpedo the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 (HEFSA) — arguably the most consequential piece of free speech legislation in the past 15 years. She reversed the commencement orders that would have brought the Act’s most important provisions into force, including the vital complaints scheme. Rather than asking Parliament to do so, she bypassed it through ministerial fiat. The Free Speech Union challenged this in the High Court on two grounds: first, that it breached the sacrosanct constitutional principle that a minister cannot defy the will of Parliament; and second, that she had failed to carry out an adequate impact assessment. Days before the case was due to be heard, Bridget Phillipson partially U-turned, announcing that she would commence most of the key provisions — and she duly did. We then became embroiled in a long-standing dispute over who had won the case. That mattered because it determined who would pay the legal costs. The High Court decided that the Free Speech Union had won and ordered the Government to pay our costs. Importantly, when Phillipson announced her partial U-turn, the Free Speech Union offered to settle if the Government paid £80,000 — around a quarter of our total legal costs. Pretty fair, no? Well, the Government refused. The Free Speech Union believes this was because Phillipson did not want to admit she had reversed course. The High Court has now ordered the Government to pay all of our costs. Bridget Phillipson’s hubris has cost taxpayers around £200,000. Combined with the Government’s own legal costs, the total bill exceeds £500,000. That also means we now have the resources to challenge Phillipson’s successor, Lucy Powell, should she attempt to reverse any of the commencement orders that bring HEFSA into force — including the much-needed complaints scheme for academics, university staff and visiting speakers, which is due to come into force on 1 September. Hear from @SpeechUnion General Secretary Lord Young of Acton 👇

The Free Speech Union has said that, should Heather Herbert join the Free Speech Union, we would do our best to help him. Heather Herbert posted a vile and deeply offensive statement on the social media platform BlueSky about the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe. The University of Aberdeen employee has now been arrested and charged over his offensive comments. While the Free Speech Union does not support Heather’s offensive comments about Ann — a dear late friend of the FSU — it is not an offence, no matter how offensive, to speak ill of the dead. Ann was a staunch defender of our fundamental right to free speech, and we very much doubt she would have supported Police Scotland’s actions. Police Scotland has a poor record when it comes to recognising citizens’ rights to free speech. If Heather has been charged with a speech offence, the Free Speech Union is here to help. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer @_ConnieShaw 👇

Lisa Nandy and Lucy Powell are leading Labour’s tinpot free speech crackdown. The two senior Labour figures — Lucy Powell and Lisa Nandy — are working in lockstep to bring social media companies to heel and muzzle people who wish to point out the Government’s failures. Last week, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, taking her department with her. The Secretary of State responsible for media called the spread of misinformation and disinformation a threat to democracy and free speech, then vacated the stage. If Nandy really did care about misinformation, surely she should have stayed on the platform and engaged in debate? This dramatic move came just a week after she announced plans in the House of Commons, as part of the Government’s Green Paper, to force social media companies to prioritise and promote what they deem to be “trustworthy” news sources. Now, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Lucy Powell is pushing for greater restrictions on social media during election periods. Her proposals would see private citizens treated like broadcasters and could result in the censorship of those who wish to engage in political debate online. Will we see private citizens — both domestic and foreign — hauled before Ofcom to answer for their tweets? Gareth Roberts writes that “these plans feel like the activities of a failing, flailing kleptocracy of the last century”. He adds: “It turns out that the hard-won freedoms of the British people – achieved by reformers and free thinkers long dead – are to be ended not by legions of brutes rolling down Regent Street in tanks, but by a gaggle of gormless supply teachers. Where Goebbels failed, Miss Hoolie from Balamory has triumphed. “The nerve of the Labour Party trying to muzzle its political opponents – under an obviously spurious claim of public safety – is disorienting. Nobody can quite believe their audacity, the absence of a scintilla of self-awareness.” This is a full-fledged assault on our right to free speech and open political debate. Gareth writes: “A propagandist of communism or fascism at least states openly that they are manufacturing a narrative for ideological control. The truly terrifying thought about Labour is that Nandy and Powell genuinely think that their worldview, such as it is, is the only correct one. “We are, then, to have our public square adjudicated by the very same people who thought that rapists should be housed in women’s prisons (Nandy), and that mere mention of the unshiftable moral stain of the Pakistani rape gangs was ‘getting a little dog whistle out’ (Powell).” Read more below 👇

When a Prime Minister resigns, we enter the danger zone as they search for a legacy and introduce poorly drafted legislation. This week, the Government announced a Conversion Therapy Ban Bill that is so broadly drawn that parents, therapists and even religious leaders could face prosecution for well-intentioned conversations about sex and gender. Speech is always curtailed in the name of preventing ‘harm’. But stopping parents from talking honestly to their children about the risks of irreversible medical procedures will cause actual, real-world harm. This is a fight we have to win. ✍️ Sign our petition and let Andy Burnham — our likely next Prime Minister — know how you feel about this anti-free speech measure 👇

In the House of Lords this afternoon, General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, warned of the chilling effect the Removal of Peerages Bill could have, with maverick peers fearful that if they say something that supposedly brings the Lords into disrepute, eg challenge progressive orthodoxy, they could be stripped of their titles. Watch Lord Young below 👇