Public Outcry as Police Probe Journalist’s Year-Old, Now-Deleted Social Media Post

Is This the End of Free Speech in Britain?

Essex Police is under fire after launching an investigation into journalist Allison Pearson for a year-old social media post, sparking widespread criticism over what some view as an attack on free speech. Pearson, 64, a notable columnist, claims two police officers appeared at her home on Remembrance Sunday, informing her that she was under investigation for allegedly "stirring up racial hatred" in a post on the platform X (formerly known as Twitter).

Police Inquiry and Public Outcry

Pearson recounted the incident, explaining that officers arrived at her residence 09:40 on Sunday morning, catching her still in her dressing gown. She was reportedly told that the inquiry stemmed from a post made a year ago but was not given specifics on the exact content or nature of the complaint. Pearson said she questioned the officers, asking, “How am I supposed to defend myself, then?” The officers reportedly had no answer, sharing a glance that she described as “Kafkaesque.”

In response, Essex Police stated: “As a police force, we investigate matters which are reported to us without fear or favour, no matter who makes a report or to whom the incident concerns.” They confirmed that the investigation was launched under Section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, which deals with material likely to incite racial hatred.

Reaction from Public Figures

This development has drawn sharp responses from well-known figures. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson took to X to express his indignation, questioning how “Starmer’s Britain” could advocate for free speech globally while confronting journalists at home over social media posts. Johnson further commented, “Our police have their hands full of burglaries and violent crime. They are being forced to behave like a woke Securitate – and it has to stop.”

Similarly, the shadow home secretary Chris Philp voiced his disapproval, arguing that the lack of transparency around the allegation is deeply troubling. He added, “I am deeply concerned this will have a chilling effect on free speech and free expression.” Elon Musk, who owns X, also weighed in, responding to the story by saying, “This needs to stop,” implying a perceived draconian overreach by British authorities.

Police Statement and Investigation Details

Essex Police said they were investigating the case as a criminal matter rather than a “non-crime hate incident”. According to police sources, the inquiry originated from a report passed on by another unnamed police force, which flagged the post as potentially offensive or hateful. The original post, now removed, was reportedly connected to content Pearson had shared in 2023 concerning pro-Palestine demonstrations in London and Hamas’s October 7 terror attacks on Israel.

As part of the inquiry, police visited Pearson’s home to request her attendance at a voluntary interview, according to Essex Police, who have stated that the investigation will continue under the outlined provisions of the Public Order Act.

Legal Perspective: Free Speech Versus Public Order

Pearson’s case highlights an ongoing national debate about the boundary between free speech and public order. Under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, individuals may be prosecuted for transmitting messages that are considered “grossly offensive” or “menacing.” Additionally, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 targets messages intended to cause “distress or anxiety,” a law originally developed to address harassment by telephone but now extended to the vast domain of social media.

The frequency of police intervention in social media matters has seen a marked increase, sparking concern among civil rights advocates. Notably, a Freedom of Information request in 2017 found that 29 UK police forces made 3,395 arrests under Section 127. Since then, this figure has continued to grow, reflecting a widening interpretation of what constitutes “offensive” online conduct.

Broader Implications: Rising Tensions Over Online Policing

The rise in social media-related arrests has raised questions about police resources and priorities. Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader, commented, “What the public wants is for [police] to crack down on shoplifting, violent threats, and anti-social behaviour,” expressing frustration overstretched resources potentially being diverted to monitor social media.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, recently stated that dedicated officers “actively monitor social media for potentially prosecutable content.” This practice raises serious questions, especially given the large number of unresolved crimes, many involving violent offences. Amidst a backdrop of low morale within police ranks and declining recruitment figures, it’s difficult to see how stretched police forces are finding the resources to, as Parkinson suggests, “monitor social media.” Few, if any, police officers joined the force with the ambition to trawl through digital platforms searching for offensive posts. Yet Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly endorsed the prosecution of online offences.

The Controversy of Social Media Policing: Balancing Security and Freedom

As police forces increasingly monitor and respond to online content, questions arise about the impact on freedom of expression and the limits of state intervention. Barrister Daniel ShenSmith, known as the “BlackBeltBarrister” on YouTube, commented on the case, labelling it “outrageous” and suggesting it borders on an abuse of power. Referencing the 2020 Scottow vs CPS case, ShenSmith emphasised, “Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another.” His analysis has resonated widely, with his video on the matter amassing nearly 150,000 views in less than a day.

A Widening Legal Framework

Cases like Pearson’s illustrate a broader pattern of increased regulation of social media behaviour. Recently, various high-profile arrests over social media posts have underscored the legal risks associated with digital expression. Notably, a woman was arrested for allegedly sharing misinformation about a suspect in the Southport murders. More recently, a Lancashire man was detained for social media posts inciting violence, and a 28-year-old was charged with inciting racial hatred.

Conclusion: A National Dialogue on Free Speech and Policing

As Pearson’s case unfolds, it raises urgent questions about the future of free speech in the UK and the role of police in regulating online discourse. With heightened public scrutiny on social media policing, the incident has ignited a larger national dialogue about the balance between safeguarding public order and respecting individual rights to free expression. As the legal landscape continues to adapt to the complexities of social media, the boundaries of what constitutes “offensive” speech will likely remain a contentious issue for both the public and law enforcement agencies.

Opinion: 'Just because somebody is 'offended' - it does not make them a 'victim'

In the evolving narrative of policing, a disturbing trend has emerged where the focus seems to shift from the streets to the screens. The case of journalist Allison Pearson, a 64-year-old columnist faced with an unexpected and, frankly, bewildering visit from Essex Police over a year-old social media post, is emblematic of this shift. As a former police officer who has been in and around the police for nearly 30 years, this development doesn't just worry me; it's a clarion call for a reassessment of our priorities.