Why Britain Must Adopt the Freedom of Speech Bill, 2026.

An audio introduction to an essay by Michael Reiners, from The Salisbury Review.

Michael Reiners begins with an audacious comparison. He sets a proposed Freedom of Speech Bill beside Martin Luther's Ninety-five Theses: a document intended to break an entrenched system by naming its parts and offering a programme of reform.

The essay maps what Reiners sees as Britain's censorship machinery. Criminal communications offences can punish words judged offensive or distressing. Professional regulators can reach into speech outside the workplace. Employers and public bodies can turn lawful opinion into grounds for exclusion. The Online Safety Act, he argues, encourages platforms to remove uncertain material before anyone tests it in court.

The proposed Bill is presented as a repair kit. It would repeal several speech offences, protect lawful expression outside work, restrict regulators, replace parts of the online regime, and raise the threshold for criminal incitement.

Whether every remedy is workable is a serious question for Parliament. But Reiners' central challenge is harder to evade: freedom can be narrowed without a single dramatic ban. A vague rule here, a professional sanction there, and an anxious platform everywhere may be enough to teach citizens to censor themselves.

This is an argument for law that draws bright lines. If speech is lawful, Reiners says, institutions should not possess an informal power to make the speaker unemployable, invisible or afraid.

Read Why Britain Must Adopt the Freedom of Speech Bill, 2026, by Michael Reiners at salisburyreview.com.