Freedom of Speech Under Fire? The Case of Allison Pearson and Non-Crime Hate Incidents

On Remembrance Sunday, renowned journalist Allison Pearson received an unexpected visit from the police. Her “offense”? A now-deleted post on X (formerly Twitter) from last year that led to her being accused of a “non-crime hate incident”. The question we’re left asking ourselves is this: Are we witnessing a direct attack on our freedom of speech? Are we now in a place where expressing opinions—especially on contentious issues—might result in police intervention?

In recent years, we’ve seen a troubling pattern emerging where individuals are scrutinized and even reprimanded not for crimes but for sharing viewpoints that might offend someone. Unfortunately, it’s becoming all too common for people to escalate disagreements into accusations, often leading to serious consequences for those targeted. Are we now growing into a “nanny state”, where voicing a potentially divisive opinion is met with fear of a knock at the door?

Where Is Our Thick Skin?

There was a time when people could agree to disagree. Healthy debate was valued, and differing perspectives were often seen as a pathway to understanding. Today, it seems that the slightest offense has become grounds for drastic actions, and society appears to have lost its tolerance for contrasting opinions. Has our collective “thick skin” faded, leaving us vulnerable to every perceived slight?

The Nanny State and Our Justice System

Our justice system should prioritize real, tangible crimes that have direct victims—muggings, car theft, shoplifting, and fraud. But the growing trend of police resources being allocated to “non-crime hate incidents” raises the question: Are we more focused on protecting feelings than protecting citizens from harm? It’s not a matter of endorsing harmful speech or behavior, but rather one of balancing free expression with actual safety.

Allison Pearson’s experience serves as just one example, but there have been many others this year:

• Politicians Silenced: Members of the Reform Party, among others, have highlighted the need to address this overreach, arguing that police resources should be directed towards genuine threats to public safety. Some have spoken out on X, expressing concerns over how non-crime incidents are pursued with greater vigor than serious criminal activities.
• Controversial Tweets: Notably, several tweets by public figures expressing moderate or unpopular opinions have led to warnings, investigations, or even police visits. This has happened to various commentators, writers, and influencers who shared opinions on topics like gender, immigration, and national identity—issues that naturally spark debate but shouldn’t necessarily prompt legal repercussions.

The Price of Speech

Freedom of expression has limits, and as a democratic society, we understand the importance of curbing hate speech that incites violence or crime. However, when expressing a personal viewpoint—a right enshrined in democratic principles—becomes grounds for police intervention, we should question the direction we’re heading. Are we risking a society where individuals censor themselves out of fear of “offending” others, rather than freely engaging in public discourse?

The public interest is better served when our justice system focuses on addressing pressing concerns, such as increasing rates of theft and violent crime, rather than policing speech. This shift not only protects our rights but also ensures that law enforcement resources are directed where they’re needed most.

A Call for Balance

As we reflect on these trends, it’s worth considering the words of some prominent figures who have been vocal about the importance of free speech and civil debate. Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of a democratic society, but as our tolerance for differing views diminishes, so does our ability to maintain a free and open society.

It’s time we called for a balanced approach—one that respects the right to express differing viewpoints without fear of punishment, while still addressing genuinely harmful actions.

In a world that increasingly prioritizes safety over freedom, perhaps we should ask ourselves: Is the cost of our liberty worth paying if it means we can no longer speak our minds?