Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has raised concerns about what she described as increasing pressure on free speech in the United Kingdom.
Barrett made the remarks in an interview with Bishop Robert Barron for an episode of his podcast, Bishop Barron Presents, released Sunday.
“Think about what’s happening with respect to free speech rights in the U.K.,” Barrett said during a discussion about the purpose of law. “Contrary opinions or opinions that are not in the mainstream are not being tolerated, and they’re even being criminalized. Because of the First Amendment, that can’t happen here.”
Why It Matters
Barrett’s comments come as Britain has faced heightened scrutiny over how it polices speech, including criticism from Vice President JD Vance in recent months.
Some critics have focused on the Online Safety Act, rolled out this year, which requires social media companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. Critics argue it is being applied too broadly and has resulted in the removal of content that is lawful.
Others point to specific incidents and prosecutions. One case frequently cited involves a British Catholic woman charged for silently praying outside an abortion facility under a new buffer zone law. Separately, police in London and Manchester have said they would arrest people who chant “globalize the intifada,” prompting renewed debate about where enforcement ends and protected speech begins.
What To Know
During the interview, Barron referenced Catholic thinker John Courtney Murray and his argument that social peace in a pluralistic society depends on shared principles. He asked Barrett whether what Catholics call “natural law” or “basic moral intuitions” can still play a meaningful role today.
Barrett responded that the Constitution “could help to that end.”
“If we think about free speech or freedom of religion, I think we can see those guarantees as a way in which they can function as articles of peace,” she said.
She argued that the First Amendment doesn’t merely permit expression but compels tolerance by limiting the government’s ability to punish viewpoints.
“I think the First Amendment protects, guarantees, forces us to respect one another and to respect disagreement. There’s a tolerance of different faiths, a tolerance of different ideas…we can see what would happen if you didn’t have the guarantee to hold that in place.”
Barrett, a devout Catholic, joined the Supreme Court in 2020 after President Donald Trump appointed her to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her confirmation solidified the court’s conservative supermajority, which later overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022.
What People Are Saying
Vice President JD Vance said at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year: “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”
He added: ”I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come, not from within Europe, but from within my own country.”
A U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in the U.K. released over the summer said “significant human rights issues” in the country included “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression.”
British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told reporters in September: “Free speech is one of the founding values of the United Kingdom, and we protect it jealously and fiercely and always will.”
He added: ”I draw a limit between free speech and the speech of those that want to peddle pedophilia and suicide (on) social media to children. Therefore, I’m all for free speech, but I’m also for protecting children from things that will harm them.”
What Happens Next
Debate over the balance between speech protections, public order, and online safety in the U.K. is expected to continue in the months ahead, particularly as enforcement decisions and high-profile cases keep drawing attention.
