Thread by @GeorgeMonbiot

This is a hazardous topic to discuss, as you immediately get accused of all sorts of things, but here goes.
I think the boundaries of free speech in this country are in the wrong place.
Thread/

Civil law in the UK goes to great lengths to protect people’s *reputations* against free speech, often with oppressive consequences, as the outcome of some recent defamation suits show. But the law does little to protect people’s *lives* against free speech.

There are exceptions: namely hate speech and the Cancer Act. But, to give one example, the outrageous lies told by certain influencers about vaccines kill people: those who believe them and therefore avoid vaccination have been more likely to die of Covid-19.

In this case, we have placed freedom of speech above freedom from unnecessary death. Lying influencers are free to kill people. I think this is unbalanced. The boundary is in the wrong place.

By contrast, while human lives are seldom protected from free speech, money is strongly protected. You cannot lie in a share prospectus. You are not allowed to make false claims about a product. Why do we accept a situation in which money is defended more vigorously than life?

Similarly, politicians (one in particular comes to mind) can win elections with the help of outrageous and demonstrable lies, and there are no consequences. I think there should be consequences. I think lying in public office should be an offence.

We should seek a balance of freedoms. Where freedom of speech and freedom from unnecessary death conflict, or freedom of speech and freedom from political lying conflict, I don’t see why freedom of speech must always prevail. I expand on these themes here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…