Trump sends free-speech team to interview UK pro life campiagners

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-60646285.amp google is your friend. This survey said that 15% of ALL women (not just women having abortions) are coerced (halfway down the page). The woman who was arrested for peacefully holding a sign saying "here to talk if you want" and was arrested was no doubt aware of that and was trying to help vulnerable women. The state couldn't give a toss about them or their babies as it is cheaper for it for the woman to have an abortion rather than being offered support.

Archived version of article in The Economist for anyone who wants it:

https://archive.is/PjkrM

We don’t have absolute free speech. Shouting racist and antisemitic things at people is against the law. Shouting bomb in a crowd and starting a stampede can get you arrested for endangering life. Maliciously accusing someone on FB of being a paedophile can get you arrested. Should we be able to do these things freely in the name of free speech?

Could you link to the evidence, please?

No. There always caveats to protect individuals.

I am comfortable that both these things are harassment if near an abortion clinic.

The zones just make things clear for everyone.

No, any harassment can be dealt with with existing laws - it is already a crime to harass others in the street. The women Trump is concerned about who were arrested are - one for praying silently (ridiculous) and one for holding a sign saying "here to talk, if you want to." There is evidence that many women are coerced into abortion so it is in effect a feminist issue. Others have abortions as they feel they have no support. I am embarrassed to be British at the moment as are many millions of others.

Sounds harsh but I do wish he would stick to fucking up his own country and leave us tf alone

Free speech should not be an excuse to be an absolute cunt of the highest order, which is what these people are.

The distress they cause is huge and I'm so glad the government have put in buffer zones to keep them back.

I don’t believe in absolute free speech, so am quite comfortable with the exclusion zones.

But the odd thing is that Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t believe in absolute free speech either.

Quite. Can't stand the use of 'pro-life' to describe anti-abortion activism and harassment.

Statistics in the UK suggest around 60% of women and girls will have a termination in their reproductive lifetimes, that the majority of them will have early terminations, and that the majority will also be or become mothers. Are these activist nutters really suggesting that vast swathes of mothers in British society are not 'pro-life'?? Stupid, vapid idiots.

@illinivich
Americans don't understand that this isn’t a free speech issue. The point of exclusion zones around clinics is to stop women being harrassed for a medical decision.

Some states and some local governments in the USA have buffer zone laws. Those require protesters to stay at least 35-100 feet away from abortion clinics. Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court refused to hear legal challenges to local buffer zone laws. I'm not sure Trump understands (he doesn't seem to have a clue about due process, the roles of states vs the federal government, or the roles of the three branches of government, for example, and his actions against Harvard, Columbia, and other universities show he doesn't care about free speech) but I doubt he cares. This gives him a cudgel against the UK in negotiations and plays to his base at home.

www.cnn.com/2025/02/24/politics/abortion-clinics-protest-zones-supreme-court

I totally disagree with the zones. They’re an imported “solution” to an imported problem.

What we need is leadership. We need politicians to say “whatever your views, leave women alone”. The public discussion should be on that ground.

Instead we have somehow decided that stopping people from being silent in X location is Wrong. It isn’t.

These zones AND the push to decriminalise abortion WITHOUT interrogating the reasons why the police are reportedly investigating women who procure abortion outside the time limits are going to lead to a restriction on abortion because we all know that survival chances have changed since we set our limit.

Americans don't understand that this isn’t a free speech issue. The point of exclusion zones around clinics is to stop women being harrassed for a medical decision.

Anyone is entitled to speak against the termination of pregnancy laws in this country and lobby politicians. I don't think anyone has been arrested for saying that they are against the law and want it changed?

The case of the women charged with praying near a clinic does seem insanely harsh at first glance. But she didn’t need to prayer there, it would make no difference to God if she was at the clinic or at home. Therefore, there's a good chance she wanted women to see her and let the women know they are been seen. That could be interpreted as harassment.

Foreign Governments do impose economic sanctions, so i dont understand why people find it so shocking that the US would do it to the UK, especially if they think it could effect their business and citizens.

Anti-women, anti-choice, anti-women surely?

A pro-life group is all about ensuring free healthcare and gun control and abolition of the death penalty, surely?

Musk has been tweeting a lot about the cases in the UK where people were visited by the police, arrested even, for what seem to be cases where someone has taken exception to mild things they said online.

A lot of Americans seem to think we no longer have free speech as a result. I think they are genuinely perplexed by it.

Critical theory and the idea that everything needs to be understood through the lens of power and oppression is highly problematic when applied to free speech. If/when this is recognised and addressed, incidents like these should stop arising.

I am not a free speech absolutist and I think the bar for limiting it should be high- but I think that attention needs to be placed on the social media platforms that are publishing and platforming unquestionably damaging and horrific content.

Whilst it is important that we are aware of these examples, I think it’s important to consider how they are being used as a smokescreen and to deflect accountability that platform owners should be taking for what is going on on their platforms. They can no longer claim that regulating content is impossible- they are now pivoting to curtailing of important freedoms.

To be a little bit fair to those doing tha pandering. He IS a spoilt child that we can’t afford to upset…

Restricting speech is a difficult area of regulation. I think Ofcom and IPSO get it wrong on many occasions. But, at least the regulatory bodies are required to be transparent about requirements and there are processes for appealing, with open access to processes and findings.

What concerns me about unregulated online media is - fake news, propaganda and how easy it is to harass and bully people. I don’t think any publisher (and I count social media platforms as publishers) should be free from accountability for the content they publish. It is no surprise that the owner of X isn’t keen on the government’s commitment to regulation. I think his framing of the issue as a free speech one is disingenuous. He isn’t acknowledging or speaking about the issues arising from the Online Safety Bill, most of those who listen to him are likely to be oblivious to this.

Chelsea Russell arrested and sentenced for posting the lyrics to a Snoop Dogg track that contained the n word:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921.amp

Julian Foulkes, 71, from Gillingham, was arrested by Kent Police after he questioned a supporter of pro-Palestine demonstrations on X.

www.lbc.co.uk/crime/police-apologise-following-arrest-of-retired-special-constable-over-anti-jewish/

Couple arrested for posting unknown comments about their 9 year old daughter's school teacher :

30 people a day are arrested in the UK for "offensive online messages "

freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/

Despite Starmer denying that the UK has a freedom of speech problem when JD Vance raised this with him, when even the Economist recognises it then you know that there is a problem:

www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways

I worked near a clinic where there were campaigners/protesters present everyday. Their presence was organised by a nearby church. Whilst they were silent, and presented as though they were praying with rosary beads in hand, they had horrific posters and materials they used to adorn their ‘camp’ with. They used to get a lot of abuse from passersby, but this seemed to inspire them with a sense of martyrdom. There is now an exclusion zone and, apparently, they are still at it- but this doesn’t impact on the clinic users.

they met with officials from the Foreign Office and challenged Ofcom on the online Safety Act, which is thought to be a point of contention in the White House.

Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X and an adviser to Donald Trump, is among those inside the administration said to be concerned about online regulation in the UK

This was probably the actual reason for the trip and the headline about meeting with anti-abortion campaigners was click-bait. It worked though.

I don’t believe in absolute free speech.

And, more to the point, neither does virtually anyone else. Trump certainly doesn’t, his hatred of Harvard is largely about liberal teaching. It is always worth remembering that whatever his administration does in the name of “free speech” is absolutely about something else. So in this case, access to abortion and right wing Christianity.

The meeting, I don’t know, it doesn’t seem that extreme, within the context I put above. Our diplomats and officials abroad meet all sorts of people all the time. What we don’t do is make it part of trade negotiations (some would say we should). The US is simply much, much less of an ally than they used to be, and we should start treating them as a quasi (if not actual) hostile country.

He already has. He loved it.

I used to think we shouldn't protest when that man comes here as he loves attention so much but seeing him enjoy all the wankers funnelling money into his pockets in countries where free speech means being able to slaughter journalists, fuck him, get the airhorns out.

He should try the middle east next.