By Jim Glennon for Calibre Press

In the UK (United Kingdom), daily, hourly, constantly, law enforcement officers are contacting and arresting people for “offences” that here in the United States would be considered, and protected as, free speech.

Free Speech being the most fundamental of rights, so much so, it is the foundation of our country and codified in the First of all the Amendments. The UK has no such Constitutional rights…nor do several other developed countries, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, to name but a few.

Even if countries do have some sort of codified legal document addressing free speech as a “right”, most then put limits on them. “Grossly offensive, malicious, hateful” etc. can, and often do constitute some level of a criminal offense and/or civil violation.

But, here in the U.S. of A, even speech many may find reprehensible, is protected.

Growing up, as young children, one of our most often used idioms was, “It’s a free country”! It was usually employed right after we insulted somebody, made a dubious statement or expressed a stupid opinion.

Being arrested, or even parentally punished in any way, never dawned on our still developing minds. In fact, we relished the opportunity to utilize the phrase as often as possible.

UK Police, Accused of Policing Speech

Today in the United Kingdom, according to reports, between the years 2021 and 2026, over 60,000 people were arrested for alleged “speech or communications offences”.

Big Brother Watch, a UK civil liberties group, reports that over 18,000 of those people were formally charged and over 12,000 were convicted.

Grab some popcorn, go on the internet and look up some of these contacts. The police are talking to people about what they said or did in public, or what they posted, shared, or even “liked” on social media. Honestly, I cringe. I can’t imagine, as a cop, being assigned to knock on someone’s door and ask them why they posted or shared an opinion on anything, what they were thinking or why they were praying.

A few examples.

  • Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, 48, was arrested and later criminally charged for engaging in silent prayer near an abortion clinic in Birmingham, England. Police were responding to a complaint from a member of the public who believed that Vaughan-Spruce was praying silently. An officer asked what she was doing and she admitted she was indeed praying. There had been several other complaints over a period of time that Isabel very often stood still in public and appeared to be praying. So, officers were assigned, according to news reports, to surveil her and document whether or not she appeared to be praying silently.
  • People waving the Union Jack (the national flag of the United Kingdom) have been contacted, threatened, and arrested because it was “inciting” a particular group of protesters. This appears to be allowed due to Section 14 “public order restrictions” where senior police officers have the authority and extensive latitude on limiting free speech based on particular potentially volatile situations such as protests, parades, marches, etc.
  • Irish comedian Graham Linehan was arrested by armed Metropolitan Police officers at Heathrow Airport in September 2025 on suspicion of inciting hatred/violence over three posts on X. The investigation focused on three social media posts regarding transgender individuals in female-only spaces.
  • Deborah Anderson, an American citizen living in the UK and going through chemotherapy for cancer, was visited by a uniformed officer at her home.

In a video posted by Ms. Anderson, the officer says to her: “Something we believe you have written on Facebook has upset someone.” But incredibly, he did not tell her which post it was, what was upsetting, or who the “someone” was. Ms. Anderson attempted to clarify by asking three questions. “You’re here because someone got upset? Is it against the law? Am I being arrested?” The officer, sitting in a chair replied, “My plan was that if it was you who wrote the comment, you could just make an apology to the person.”

Huh?

To her credit, Ms. Anderson, under threat of a formal interview at the police station replied, “I am not apologizing to anybody, I can tell you that.” Soon after, the officer left.

What About America, the Police and the Freedom of Speech?

So, who cares about what police officers are doing in the United Kingdom?

Well, go to YouTube and look for videos of First Amendment auditors and their interactions with American police officers.  There, truth be told, you will find too many examples of officers blatantly violating the auditors’ First Amendment rights. Honestly, it’s alarming, as well as confusing.

Let me pause here and acknowledge, loudly and clearly, that many of these so-called First Amendment auditors have a primary goal of doing nothing more than baiting police and hoping they get footage of them becoming hostile while violating their First Amendment rights.

Why?

Easy.

✅Clickbait.

✅Views.

✅Monetization.

No doubt.

That said, those examples of violations are still violations of the First Amendment. And remember, the First Amendment protects even hateful and reprehensible speech. No matter who it targets, offends, hurts, or pisses off.

A thorough understanding of both the First and Fourth Amendments should, to me, be second nature for police officers.

I don’t want to disparage any particular officers or agencies. But again, there are a multitude of cases that have gone viral where officers seem confused about, and/or simply disregard for personal reasons, the First Amendment rights of others.

One case shows a Christian street preacher and former law enforcement officer, “sermonizing” on a sidewalk adjacent to a Gay Pride event. Originally the preacher was using an amplifying device which is a separate issue. But then he continued to preach and an officer found the speech to be offensive to those in and around the parade. The following exchange took place (in part):

Officer: “…if someone is offended by your talking then we have a problem.”

Preacher: “That’s a constitutional violation of our rights if you shut us down for the content of our speech. I don’t care if they’re offended.”

Officer: “Okay then I’ll write you the ticket and we’ll go from there.”

Preacher: “Wait you’re going to ticket us for offensive speech?”

Officer: “Yes, absolutely”

Preacher: “Are you serious? You are going to cite us for offensive speech?”

Officer: “It’s called disorderly conduct.”

Preacher: “Disorderly conduct has to be accompanied by conduct.”

Officer: “This is the conduct that you’re doing.”

Preacher: “I’m a retired police officer.”

Officer: “For who?”

Preacher: “26 years federal law enforcement.”

Officer: “So it’s federal, it has nothing to do with local. Do whatever you think you can do, since you all know the law so well. I’m not gonna let you do whatever you want to do.”

Preacher: “I just want to clarify. If anything that is said is offensive, you’re going to write a ticket?”

Officer: “If someone complains that your language or what you’re saying is offensive, yes.”

The preacher was never cited for his speech (rather some form of illegal amplification system). The Chief of Police, to his credit, acknowledged that what was told to the preacher was inaccurate, apologized, and set up training for his officers to prevent such a situation from happening again. The union backed the officer from the perspective that such events are highly intense and volatile and there was a lack of adequate training for like circumstances.

The point of this article isn’t to wade waist-deep into gay rights, Christian rights, etc. It’s to address a couple of things.

The first is the First Amendment. Something that should be a well-understood legal construct. Yes, there are grey areas to be sure, but still way too many of these videos on social media are alarming.

The second point of this article concerns leadership and training. These First Amendment auditors have been around for decades at this point and in addition, the country today is woefully divided.  Each side believes they hold the moral high ground, which allows for the demonization of those with whom they disagree. This causes volatility, which requires police intervention. Protests, parades, and street speakers are a constant. Police agencies need to prepare their officers for what is and is not acceptable speech.

Police Officers Between a Rock and a Constitutional Hard Place

Many of the videos I’ve seen (and we use in our First Amendment Auditors: Legal Strategies, Enforcement & Current Case Law Seminar) involve and are directed by supervisors up to and including Chiefs of Police.

There are several instances where people, speaking within their allotted time at public meetings, are arrested because of the content of their speech. The situations of which I refer do not include those citizens using despicably foul language or making threats.

Mayors, council members and even Chiefs directing patrol officers to make arrests of people at podiums, with ZERO probable cause mind you, is ridiculous. And think of what type of position these ultimate authorities are putting their officers in.

One sergeant had a street preacher arrested for holding a sign with a bible verse on it! In the United States.

In another city, the mayor and Chief of Police, with the city attorney present, had a patrol officer forcibly arrest a woman at a podium during a public meeting for questioning a recent raise given to said attorney.

I mean, the Freedom of speech, it is literally the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights!

That said, I guarantee that most people, which unfortunately includes many police officers as well as supervisors, don’t really understand that the point of the Bill of Rights was, and is, to create and establish a basic foundation of individual liberties by protecting essential rights and freedoms from government overreach. The very first amendment guarantees essential personal rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

Conclusion

I was talking to a group of younger police officers in a seminar recently and asked this question: “Is hate speech a violation that can result in an arrest or citation?”

Several answered in the affirmative, citing their disorderly conduct statutes or ordinances.

I followed up by asking them to describe hate speech and some of the answers included speech that causes other people “distress, anger, incites, is insulting or offensive”.

My external response was subdued and professional. My inner dialogue was more like, “What the hell?!”

Time to wrap up here, for I could go on.

Perhaps, collectively, the First Amendment has gotten lost, forgotten, pushed to the side or shoved behind the all-important Fourth Amendment when it comes to training. I don’t know.

What is for certain is this. In this divided, angry, politically charged, agenda-driven world,  where video is ever-present, police officers have to be crystal clear on their understanding of what is free speech.

Again, it is our First Amendment. It is what defines our culture and us as the people of this greatest of nations. It signifies our identity, which is individual freedom. But with that freedom comes responsibility. Politicians, news organizations, social media influencers, and activists too often forget that they have to be responsible.

The police cannot forget.

Train, educate, and lead if you are in a supervisory capacity. If you are not, do all of that yourself. Take individual responsibility for your role as a guardian of our Constitution.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? Add to the comment section below or e-mail us at: editor@calibrepress.com

[As mentioned above, be sure to check out Calibre’s First Amendment Auditor’s: Legal Strategies, Enforcement & Current Case Law course!]