How Britain's Free Speech Crackdown Challenges U.S. First Amendment Rights
Britain’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, recently suggested that the United Kingdom might consider potentially extraditing American citizens, namely, those who repost or share online content that could be deemed incitement to violence or hate speech. While these laws are already vague and overreaching for the British citizens whose speech they infringe upon, the notion of their extradition expectations strikes at the very heart of the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
Yes. You read that right. The British government is trying to have the U.S. government surrender U.S. citizens who post memes so they can be brought up on charges in Britain. Here’s why American government officials tempted to go along with it should think twice.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is unequivocal in its protection of free speech, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas without fear of government retribution. This doesn’t solely cover speech that is the mainstream acceptable view, but unpopular, offensive, or contentious speech as well. The Founding Fathers knew that the free exchange of ideas, no matter how distasteful some may perceive them to be, is essential to a healthy democracy. By threatening to prosecute and potentially extradite individuals for expressing views that conflict with British Law, Parkinson’s comments present a direct challenge to the foundational principles.
The legal system in the United States is built on the premise that speech should be free from governmental interference unless it directly incites imminent lawless action as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) which set a high bar for restricting speech. This high bar is rightly difficult to meet. Therefore, the idea that reposting or sharing content online could be grounds for criminal prosecution and extradition is not only contrary to American legal standards but also poses a grave threat to the freedom of expression that is central to our national identity.
The very suggestion that Britain might seek to extradite American citizens for online speech is an affront to the principles of sovereignty and due process. Extradition is a legal process typically reserved for serious crimes such as terrorism, murder, or large-scale fraud. It requires that the alleged offense be recognized as a crime in both the requesting and requested countries, a principle established in United States v. Rauscher (1886). Under U.S. law, communication—regardless of where it falls on the spectrum of inflammatory speech—is not criminal unless it meets the stringent criteria for incitement laid out in Brandenburg.
The notion that British authorities could drag Americans into their courts for exercising our constitutionally protected rights is not only absurd but also dangerous. It sets a precedent that could be exploited by other countries with even less respect for free speech, potentially leading to the horrifying result where individuals censor themselves out of fear of foreign prosecution. On the matter of censorship Napoleon in his 1805 letter to Fouché, his minister of police, said, “I do not want any censorship of books, because every bookseller is made responsible for the work he sells, because I do not wish to take responsibility for every nonsense that comes off the printing press, and finally, because I do not want some clerk to tyrannize over the mind and to mutilate genius.” Neither Napoleon nor the Founding Fathers of our great country desired censorship of their citizens, so why does Britain want to censor the citizens of other countries? It is a product of Britain’s struggles with free speech and governance, a problem that Americans have no business being drawn into post-1776.
The fact that Britain’s government is choosing to focus on policing online speech rather than addressing the root causes of social unrest is a clear indication of leadership failure. This approach is not only misguided but also patently ineffective. It seeks to treat the symptoms rather than the disease, and in doing so, it risks further alienating an already disillusioned public. This heavy-handed approach to policing online speech reflects a broader trend of authoritarianism that has been creeping into Western democracies, whether parliamentary or otherwise. The right to free speech is a fundamental human right and any attempt to curtail it—whether by domestic or foreign governments—should be met with staunch opposition.
In United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. could extradite a foreign national despite the unlawful means by which they were brought to the U.S. However, this case, which involved serious criminal charges related to the murder of a DEA agent, is worlds apart from the idea of extraditing individuals for online speech. The notion that reposting or sharing content on social media could rise to the level of “serious criminality” justifying extradition is a gross misapplication of legal principles.
The U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty, like all such treaties, is intended to facilitate the prosecution of serious crimes—not to serve as a tool for suppressing speech. The idea that American citizens could be extradited for expressing opinions that are protected under U.S. law but considered criminal in the U.K. is an affront to the very concept of justice. It would require a radical reinterpretation of both international law and the Constitution, and it is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny in the United States especially as there is no “dual criminality” which is the crux of the issue.
Britain’s top prosecutor’s remarks are a stark reminder of the importance of defending free speech, not just in America, but around the world. The United States must stand firm in its commitment to protecting the First Amendment and resist any attempts by foreign governments to impose their restrictive laws on American citizens. Freedom of speech is not something that should be sacrificed on the altar of international diplomacy or convenience. It is a right that generations of Americans have fought and died to protect, and it must be preserved against all threats, both foreign and domestic.