Who says what and why they say it

DAVID RUNCIMAN is impressed by an exploration of how arguments over free speech are often rooted in a desire to close down dialogue

- DAVID RUNCIMAN

On 27 February, the day before he lectured the Ukrainian president in the Oval Office on the virtues of gratitude, the US vice president, JD Vance, lectured the British prime minister in the same place on the virtues of free speech. Sitting with President Trump, Vance told Keir Starmer that he and his boss were concerned about British censorship of free expression, especially online. “We know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British,” he complained to his visitor, “but also affect technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.” Starmer was not to be cowed. He responded that he had nothing to apologise for. “In relation to free speech in the UK,” he said, “I'm very proud of our history there.”

In fact, it could be argued that both men were being profoundly disingenuous, as is so often the case when high principles of free speech are invoked. Fara Dabhoiwala’s excellent, revisionist history What Is Free Speech? makes clear that free speech absolutists such as Vance are invariably anything but. Dig a little deeper and their uncompromising stance is hedged around with caveats. Usually what they mean is that they believe in free speech for the people they think merit it. Meanwhile, no British leader should get on his high horse about British traditions of liberty of expression. That proud history of which Starmer boasted is deeply compromised by episodes of corruption and repression.