Keir Starmer’s Approach to Free Speech Risks Straining US-UK Relations

[Social Media]

 

The alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom, a cornerstone of global security since 1941, faces an unexpected challenge. It is not rooted in policy disagreements over trade with China, the Chagos Islands, or the Ukraine conflict. Instead, it is a cultural and ideological clash, centered on free speech. Labour leader Keir Starmer’s stance on this fundamental issue risks not only economic opportunities but also the strength of the transatlantic partnership.  

 

 

The incoming American administration, composed of individuals who admire Britain’s democratic traditions and the ideals of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, now worries that these values are under threat. They perceive the UK as teetering toward a form of "woke despotism" where the suppression of opinions could overshadow justice. This concern is not a typical diplomatic disagreement but a deep-seated ideological divide that places free speech at the forefront.  

 

For US Republicans, free speech is a non-negotiable principle. British politicians struggling to grasp this could consider the outrage they feel over the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan women. Similarly, US conservatives view the criminalization of opinions as an affront to fundamental liberties. Yet, the British Left, including Labour, often dismisses these concerns, painting figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk as extremists rather than engaging with their arguments.  

 

Labour’s approach to online regulation has exacerbated tensions. Starmer and his party have pushed for stricter internet safety laws and measures against Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). During a Lords debate on child protection, Labour peers focused not on safeguarding children but on criticizing Musk. Starmer himself has openly threatened legal action against social media platforms, blaming them for harmful disinformation and suggesting that "the law must be upheld everywhere."  

 

Musk, however, remains steadfast in his defense of free speech. Far from being anti-British, he exhibits a deep affection for the UK, viewing it as the cradle of liberty. His cultural and ancestral ties to Britain fuel his commitment to preserving open discourse. When Starmer criticized calls for inquiries into the grooming scandal as pandering to the far Right, Musk revived the issue on X, bringing overdue attention to a problem many felt had been underreported.  

 

Starmer’s reaction to Musk’s criticism has further inflamed the situation. By dismissing legitimate concerns about vulnerable children as far-right rhetoric, he perpetuates the very fears that prevented authorities from addressing such abuses in the first place. Labour MPs, aware that many implicated councils were under their party’s control, find it easier to attack Musk than confront uncomfortable truths.  

 

The stakes are high. Britain’s new laws, including the 2023 National Security Act and the 2024 Online Safety Act, allow for punitive measures against foreign entities accused of interference. Hypothetically, the UK could fine X a significant portion of its global revenue, a move that would undoubtedly strain US-UK relations.  

 

Despite the growing divide, there is still room for reconciliation. Starmer could prioritize free trade negotiations with the United States, building on the framework established by the CPTPP and aligning with the USMCA. Such an agreement could deliver economic growth and political credibility, giving Labour a historic achievement.  

 

However, Starmer must contend with a changing global dynamic, where figures like Trump view his policies as betrayals of national interest. From decarbonization to immigration, Starmer’s positions clash with the priorities of American conservatives. As Trump and Musk rally support for free speech and national sovereignty, their views resonate with a significant portion of the British public.  

 

If Starmer continues down his current path, the rift between the US and UK will only deepen. In this ideological battle, where principles of free speech and patriotism take center stage, Starmer may find himself increasingly isolated, with public opinion favoring the Americans. The outcome of this struggle could reshape the future of the transatlantic alliance.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-01-21

 

 

[MangoKorat]

56 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Starmer may find himself increasingly isolated, with public opinion favoring the Americans.

Doubtful, well at least on the matter of free speech. The British people are sensible enough to realise that there cannot be total freedom of speech - not in a world where people are so easily reached and influenced by social media. You can't just let every madman out there say what he wants.

 

Yes, we have a growing right wing faction in the UK that might lean towards the US but overall, we are a moderate people that won't tolerate any bullying. Leaning to the US will actually be the thing that isolates Starmer.

 

Starmer may well find himself isolated for other reasons but I for one don't give two hoots about the so called 'special relationship' if it means cow towing to a lunatic child of a president who spends a lot of his time simply lying. We are not and I believe, should never be, the 51st state of the USA. The UK should be looking to rebuild ties with its neighbours in Europe - not worrying about what Trump will do.

 

It must also be remembered that the US has several major intelligence gathering/listening stations situated in the UK.  Trump's military advisers will no doubt remind him of that if any major spats with the UK spark off.

 

In any case, the UK's best policy is to just sit it out - Trump will be gone in 4 years and that's not so long.

[Dionigi]

[Government silencing of speech] is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

John Stuart Mill

[JonnyF]

There will be no relationship with the US until Labour are removed.

 

Just as there will be no free speech (unless you're agreeing with 2 Tier Keir of course).

[Thingamabob]

5 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Doubtful, well at least on the matter of free speech. The British people are sensible enough to realise that there cannot be total freedom of speech - not in a world where people are so easily reached and influenced by social media. You can't just let every madman out there say what he wants.

 

Yes, we have a growing right wing faction in the UK that might lean towards the US but overall, we are a moderate people that won't tolerate any bullying. Leaning to the US will actually be the thing that isolates Starmer.

 

Starmer may well find himself isolated for other reasons but I for one don't give two hoots about the so called 'special relationship' if it means cow towing to a lunatic child of a president who spends a lot of his time simply lying. We are not and I believe, should never be, the 51st state of the USA. The UK should be looking to rebuild ties with its neighbours in Europe - not worrying about what Trump will do.

 

It must also be remembered that the US has several major intelligence gathering/listening stations situated in the UK.  Trump's military advisers will no doubt remind him of that if any major spats with the UK spark off.

 

In any case, the UK's best policy is to just sit it out - Trump will be gone in 4 years and that's not so long

Notwithstanding the dislike you have for Trump, along with Starmer and Lammy etc, he will be a better friend of Britain than Biden ever was. 

[newbee2022]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

The alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom, a cornerstone of global security since 1941, faces an unexpected challenge. It is not rooted in policy disagreements over trade with China, the Chagos Islands, or the Ukraine conflict. Instead, it is a cultural and ideological clash, centered on free speech. Labour leader Keir Starmer’s stance on this fundamental issue risks not only economic opportunities but also the strength of the transatlantic partnership.  

 

 

The incoming American administration, composed of individuals who admire Britain’s democratic traditions and the ideals of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, now worries that these values are under threat. They perceive the UK as teetering toward a form of "woke despotism" where the suppression of opinions could overshadow justice. This concern is not a typical diplomatic disagreement but a deep-seated ideological divide that places free speech at the forefront.  

 

 

For US Republicans, free speech is a non-negotiable principle. British politicians struggling to grasp this could consider the outrage they feel over the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan women. Similarly, US conservatives view the criminalization of opinions as an affront to fundamental liberties. Yet, the British Left, including Labour, often dismisses these concerns, painting figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk as extremists rather than engaging with their arguments.  

 

Labour’s approach to online regulation has exacerbated tensions. Starmer and his party have pushed for stricter internet safety laws and measures against Musk’s platform, X (formerly Twitter). During a Lords debate on child protection, Labour peers focused not on safeguarding children but on criticizing Musk. Starmer himself has openly threatened legal action against social media platforms, blaming them for harmful disinformation and suggesting that "the law must be upheld everywhere."  

 

Musk, however, remains steadfast in his defense of free speech. Far from being anti-British, he exhibits a deep affection for the UK, viewing it as the cradle of liberty. His cultural and ancestral ties to Britain fuel his commitment to preserving open discourse. When Starmer criticized calls for inquiries into the grooming scandal as pandering to the far Right, Musk revived the issue on X, bringing overdue attention to a problem many felt had been underreported.  

 

Starmer’s reaction to Musk’s criticism has further inflamed the situation. By dismissing legitimate concerns about vulnerable children as far-right rhetoric, he perpetuates the very fears that prevented authorities from addressing such abuses in the first place. Labour MPs, aware that many implicated councils were under their party’s control, find it easier to attack Musk than confront uncomfortable truths.  

 

The stakes are high. Britain’s new laws, including the 2023 National Security Act and the 2024 Online Safety Act, allow for punitive measures against foreign entities accused of interference. Hypothetically, the UK could fine X a significant portion of its global revenue, a move that would undoubtedly strain US-UK relations.  

 

Despite the growing divide, there is still room for reconciliation. Starmer could prioritize free trade negotiations with the United States, building on the framework established by the CPTPP and aligning with the USMCA. Such an agreement could deliver economic growth and political credibility, giving Labour a historic achievement.  

 

However, Starmer must contend with a changing global dynamic, where figures like Trump view his policies as betrayals of national interest. From decarbonization to immigration, Starmer’s positions clash with the priorities of American conservatives. As Trump and Musk rally support for free speech and national sovereignty, their views resonate with a significant portion of the British public.  

 

If Starmer continues down his current path, the rift between the US and UK will only deepen. In this ideological battle, where principles of free speech and patriotism take center stage, Starmer may find himself increasingly isolated, with public opinion favoring the Americans. The outcome of this struggle could reshape the future of the transatlantic alliance.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2025-01-21

 

 

Starmer should continue his way and should not cueing for boot licking US oligarchs (musk, Trump and others)

Bravo Starmer👍

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Starmer should continue his way and should not cueing for boot licking US oligarchs (musk, Trump and others)

Bravo Starmer👍

The problem is, he is already boot licking.  It appears he seems to favour alignment with the US as the UK is further pressured into making a choice between them and our geographical neighbours.

 

 

[MangoKorat]

3 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Notwithstanding the dislike you have for Trump, along with Starmer and Lammy etc, he will be a better friend of Britain than Biden ever was. 

Let's revisit that in a year or so.

[Thingamabob]

15 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Let's revisit that in a year or so.

Will do.

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, Dionigi said:

[Government silencing of speech] is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

John Stuart Mill

 

Good lord. Someone who's actually done some serious reading outside of X and Facebook. Nice.

Also means you're aware of the harm principle of course.

[sammieuk1]

Free speech is alive and well only if your name is Sir Keir🤔

 

 

[Dionigi]

15 hours ago, BusyB said:

 

Good lord. Someone who's actually done some serious reading outside of X and Facebook. Nice.

Also means you're aware of the harm principle of course.

Certain people are of the opinion that having their feelings hurt constitutes harm. If this were true then very few statements could be made that do not hurt someones feelings somewhere. therefore the governments control of free speech on the grounds that it hurts others feelings is wrong. 

[BusyB]

8 hours ago, Dionigi said:

Certain people are of the opinion that having their feelings hurt constitutes harm. If this were true then very few statements could be made that do not hurt someones feelings somewhere. therefore the governments control of free speech on the grounds that it hurts others feelings is wrong. 

 

I think you'll find Mill agrees with you.

[Evil Penevil]

15 hours ago, Dionigi said:

Certain people are of the opinion that having their feelings hurt constitutes harm. If this were true then very few statements could be made that do not hurt someones feelings somewhere. therefore the governments control of free speech on the grounds that it hurts others feelings is wrong. 

 

That is the key point.  Starmer and some politicians in many Western countries, including the U.S., want to extend the exceptions to free speech to words that offend and hurt, not just words that cause actual harm.

 

Freedom of speech and expression has always carried many exceptions:  defamation; lying under oath; words crucial to the commission of a crime ("Give me all your money" by an armed robber); inciting to crime;  and fraud, for example.  In modern times, false advertising and revealing confidential medical, financial or trade informaion have been decided not to be protected by free speech.

 

The common characteristic of all of the above exceptions is that they cause actual harm; people suffer measurable harm because of the publication or utterance of certain words in certain circumstances.  The recent trend is to place words that offend or hurt under the same umbrella, often with the argument such words also causepsychological  harm.  It's a dangerous limitation on free speech because judgments as to the offense or hurt from words is always subjective and depends on an individual's reaction.

[georgegeorgia]

What a fantastic prime Minister is Mr Starmer 

I love his immigration policies and the more refugees they take the better !

 

[brewsterbudgen]

6 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

What a fantastic prime Minister is Mr Starmer 

I love his immigration policies and the more refugees they take the better !

 

I wouldn't go so far as "fantastic" but I think he's doing a good job sorting out the mess from the years of Tory mismanagement. His immigration policies are not any different from the Tories, although I truly hope he doesn't follow through with raising the minimum income requirement for Settlement visas.  Genuine refugees will continue to be admitted, and if this was done properly it might stop the numbers of illegals coming across the Channel.  

[georgegeorgia]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

efugees will continue to be admitted, and if this was done properly it might stop the numbers of illegals coming across the Channel.  

And ...to Australia!!!

 

But thanks for welcoming all the refugees in that country of yours the size of a State in Australia 

[brewsterbudgen]

45 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

And ...to Australia!!!

 

But thanks for welcoming all the refugees in that country of yours the size of a State in Australia 

 

You don't have to thank me.  Thank the UNHCR.  

[georgegeorgia]

30 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

You don't have to thank me.  Thank the UNHCR.  

Thank your own people, they are known as the "whinging poms" in Australia 

They will whinge in the bars in Pattaya about immigration,but then in the next sentence tell you they voted the same mob back in!