Free Speech: the US and UK United in Division

“Free speech” has become the rallying cry of some of the world’s most polarising figures and it’s not just rhetoric, it’s a movement. From Donald Trump railing against “far-left fascism” in 2020 to Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom march in London last weekend, the slogan has been wielded less as a principle and more as a political tool to mobilise disillusioned crowds. But over the past week, particularly as Trump visits the UK, the contradictions in how it’s applied are becoming harder to ignore.

In the US, the First Amendment enshrines near-absolute protections against government censorship, a framing that shapes how Americans see free expression, especially in an era of social media and shifting cultural norms. Cancel culture emerged as a critical flashpoint: to some, a form of accountability through public shaming; to others, a threat that silenced dissent and punished conservative or traditional views. Trump and his allies seized on this narrative, most notably in 2020 following George Floyd’s killing and the subsequent BLM protests. Progressive calls for racial equity entered the mainstream, while dissenting voices were increasingly framed as being under attack. Trump warned of “totalitarianism” through cancel culture and promised to end shadow-banning, banishing, and public shaming of those expressing disagreement. These concerns extended throughout Biden’s term and were defining in Trump’s 2024 campaign and re-election. We can see how these impacted as recently as January 2025, when he signed an executive order to “restore freedom of speech,” framing platform fact-checking as censorship.

And yet, fast forward to this month: after the fatal shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, Trump and his allies celebrated when ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show for comments they deemed offensive regarding Kirk’s killing. The same leaders who once railed against censorship are now cheering it on and calling for more. From this we can draw that cancel culture isn’t a phenomena confined to ideology but instead it is a tool that can weaponise mob mentality and public support depending on whose voices they want silenced.

Coalition of discontent

Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, former leader of the English Defence League, whose rallies famously featured Nazi salutes, racist chanting, and violent clashes with minority communities, staged his Unite the Kingdom march in London last weekend, branding it a “festival of free speech.” Attendance figures were contested: Robinson claimed “three million patriots,” while police estimated closer to 110,000. The discrepancy itself became a large narrative point of downplaying and censorship, feeding narratives of media bias and “legacy media” manipulation.

The march drew a broad coalition of discontented citizens. Robinson’s messaging particularly, slogans like Unite the Kingdom and “festival of free speech” allowed attendees to project their own priorities onto the movement, creating a flexible rallying point against the backdrop of the UK’s cost-of-living crisis. Frustration over immigration, rising xenophobia, and protests surrounding migrant hotels intersected with economic pressures and backlash against progressive or “woke” culture, creating a highly charged environment where grievances could be amplified.

An aspect of the march often overlooked by commentators was the visible presence of Christian nationalists, who came out in defense of traditional values. This didn’t emerge in isolation: earlier controversies, such as a school cancelling Easter celebrations in the name of inclusivity, had already sparked online dissent and debates about the erasure of Britain’s Christian heritage. These debates are particularly sensitive against the backdrop of declining Christian affiliation in England and Wales between 2011 and 2021, and they intersect with broader anxieties about cultural and national identity.

Free speech in the UK: Limits and controversy

It is important to note that free speech in the UK is not absolute. Unlike in the US, UK law balances expression against public order, equality, and protection from harm. Government interventions against perceived harms have drawn criticism, particularly in the context of this march and last year’s Southport riots. Much of the unrest in Southport was fueled by misinformation regarding the immigration status of a murderer, which spread on X (formerly Twitter); a platform that, at the time, had been recently rebranded and positioned under Elon Musk as a space for absolute free speech (despite notable inconsistencies and caveats). Musk even weighed in on these events openly criticising UK regulations and free speech policy, particularly around arrests for posts deemed to incite hateful acts. Something which Donald Trump has vocally been against as recently as early September.

This is significant, as when we fast-forward to the Unite the Kingdom march: symbolically, Musk made an appearance via satellite, again calling for drastic political changes and aligning himself with Robinson. His involvement underscores how global digital platforms can amplify local movements, shape public perception, and heighten the stakes of free speech debates in the UK.

Free speech, frustration, and the need for cultural awareness

People responded to the Unite the Kingdom march with fear and concern, particularly because much of the framing around Britishness, current immigration discourse, and Robinson’s history has been tied to the exclusion of people of colour and Muslim communities. Even the counter-protest was organised by Stand Up to Racism, a name that directly plays on these concerns. While these dynamics were undeniably present at the march, it would be remiss to label all attendees as racists and extremists.

Participants did not share a single, unified goal, but slogans like Unite the Kingdom and “festival of free speech” offered a rallying point. Even if we look from a racially diverse perspective anecdotally and visually, while a majority of participants were white, there was also representation from multicultural backgrounds. Socio-economically many were likely working-class. But if we surmise a likely reason for their alliance, the march represented a reclamation of voice: a way to push back against any societal changes they feel have failed them, and to embrace an alternative narrative through nationalism and patriotism.

This signals that economic and social grievances often intersect with cultural and identity concerns and that these participants cannot simply be dismissed or lambasted with a uniform label of being just racists. Their growing prominence, diversity and visibility is significant. At the same time, for communities historically subject to intolerance, particularly people of colour and migrants, it is also important to acknowledge how the march generated fear and discomfort. Historical prejudice, xenophobia, and perceptions of migrant intolerance make many feel unsafe, and that element cannot be overlooked.

The broader reality is that free speech standards are being applied inconsistently, often used either to mobilise those who feel their views are being silenced or to suppress others. But again it is important to recognise and realise that this is calculated and being wielded as a tool in a climate of discontent.  

It grows increasingly crucial to build confidence in one’s beliefs while remaining open-minded and sympathetic toward others in such a divisive climate. Jumping to conclusions or making assumptions risks deepening the divisions that got us here in the first place and leaves communities vulnerable and susceptible to narratives that incense them against each other. Cultivating the knowledge and skills to challenge misinformation, unfairness, and inequity are more important than ever and today, being informed, compassionate, and prepared is the minimum standard that we are struggling to measure up to. 

At the Unmistakables, we help organisations stay ahead and navigate discourse critically with social listening and cultural analysis on social topics. This allows us to understand the nature of conversations, track emerging narratives, and gain a comprehensive view of what’s happening in the world. We then translate these insights into practical guidance for businesses, understanding its pertinence for their teams and brand; how to respond and engage thoughtfully; sharing relevant news and predictive trends to keep teams informed.

For ourselves, we also facilitate internal conversations to strengthen critical thinking and challenge biases. One example is our Dine and Debate sessions, lunchtime discussions on timely and pertinent social topics designed to nurture reflection and encourage challenge.

If you want support navigating the current landscape and preparing your teams to be culturally aware, confident, and informed, get in touch with us. We’ll also be revisiting the topic of free speech in our upcoming Dine and Debate sessions, so stay tuned and stay prepared!