Democracy cannot exist without the right to free speech.
Free speech should be robustly defended as a fundamental freedom.
The National Secular Society has defended free speech from religious threats since our founding. We played an instrumental role in abolishing "blasphemy" laws in Britain, but serious concerns remain. Blasphemy laws still exist in Northern Ireland. And throughout the UK, religious fundamentalists seek to impose their blasphemy taboos on others through violence and intimidation.
There are also increasing attempts to categorise offending religious sensibilities as 'hate speech', making criticism, mockery or perceived 'insult' of religion a criminal act akin to racial hatred or inciting violence – in other words, a 'blasphemy law by the back door'.
Without free speech no search for truth is possible; without free speech no discovery of truth is useful; without free speech progress is checked… Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.
We are further concerned by a developing 'culture of offence' in which any speech or action deemed likely to offend religious sensibilities is considered taboo. Enforced by a toxic mix of terrorism and religious deference, this is chilling free speech through self-censorship.
We also campaign against blasphemy laws around the world, where they continue to be used to target religious and political minorities. These are sometimes described by UK politicians as 'misuse' of blasphemy laws, but we contend there are never any legitimate uses for blasphemy laws.
Being offended from time to time is the price we all pay for living in a free society. Rather than trying to silence those we disagree with, we believe the answer to speech we don't like is more speech – better speech.
We therefore campaign to protect and preserve freedom of expression, including offensive, critical and shocking speech.
What you can do
1. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
2. Join us
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Fundamentalist Christians claim victory over “gay cure” bus advert
Posted: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:32
The Christian Legal Centre and an organisation called Core Issues Trust, which claims to offer curative "therapy" for homosexuals, are claiming that a Court of Appeal decision today over the banning of an advertisement on London buses is "an important victory" – even though the ban remains in place for the time being.
The poster, which was to appear on the side of buses, read: "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" It was supposed to be a response to the ads posted by Stonewall which read "Some people are gay – get over it".
The Christian fundamentalists argued in court that the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, had illegally used his position as chairman of Transport for London (TfL) to ban the Christian advert in order to garner gay votes for his 2012 election campaign.
The High Court rejected these claims, but today the Court of Appeal said there should be further investigation to reconsider whether the Mayor had acted "for an improper purpose" in calling for the ban.
Mayor Johnson had argued that the Core Issues advert was ''offensive to gays'' and could lead to retaliation against the wider Christian community.
His office welcomed the ruling, saying: "The Mayor is pleased TfL's original decision to ban the Core Issues Trust advert has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. He agreed with TfL's ban at the time and will continue to support the banning of adverts that breach advertising policy and cause widespread public offence, as this advert clearly did".
Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "In a mature democracy both sides of a debate should be heard but it seems that Boris Johnson, Transport for London and Stonewall are intent to shut down the Christian side of the debate by fair means or foul".
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, declared: "It is not possible to reach a conclusion on the question whether TfL's decision not to allow the Trust's advertisement was unlawful on the grounds that it was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose.
"I would, therefore, remit the case for the judge (Mrs Justice Lang) to reconsider this question in the light of fresh evidence and in the light of any further material that emerges as a result of the directions that she may give".
Lord Dyson said that if after reconsideration "the judge decides that the decision was not instructed by the mayor and not made for an improper purpose, then her decision [upholding the ban] will stand".
However, if the judge decides that the decision was instructed by the mayor or made for an improper purpose, "then the decision must be quashed."
Dr Mike Davidson, who leads The Core Issues Trust, said he would write to the mayor to ask for all emails linked to the ban, "current and potentially deleted", to be made available to his lawyers.
Government drops plans to outlaw "annoying" behaviour
Posted: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:45
Government ministers have abandoned plans to replace anti-social behaviour orders with injunctions to prevent "nuisance and annoyance".
The move was welcomed by the National Secular Society, which as part of the Reform Clause 1 campaign, had argued that the law was too broadly drafted and posed a significant threat to free expression.
Under the original Government proposals, courts could impose injunctions on anyone engaging, or threatening to engage, in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".
The move to drop the proposals follows a big defeat for the Government in the House of Lords, where Peers voted by 306 to 178 earlier this month to back an amendment by the crossbench peer Lord Dear, who claimed the move could criminalise any nuisance or annoying behaviour in the streets including peaceful protest and street preachers.
Ahead of the vote, the National Secular Society and Christian Institute wrote jointly to peers to express major concerns about threats to freedom expression posed by the proposals. Representatives of the two organisations discussed these concerns formally with Liberal Democrat Home Office minister, Norman Baker.
Mr Baker has now tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill that will restore the original Asbo test, under which "harassment, alarm or distress" must be caused before a court can grant an injunction.
He said it had never been the Government's intention to prevent people exercising their freedom of speech or rights of protest but acknowledged that the "very large vote in the House of Lords that was indicative of widespread concern".
Keith Porteous Wood, National Secular Society executive director, said: "No one should be subjected to legal sanctions simply for causing annoyance. This law would have been exploited to silence the free expression of views some thought offensive or did not agree with."
"Clause 1 clearly failed to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the public from anti-social behaviour and protecting essential freedoms, and we are pleased the Government now acknowledges this."
The Government U-turn came after months of work by the Reform Clause 1 campaign, a coalition of religious, and secular civil liberty campaigners, including The Christian institute, the National Secular Society and the Justice and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. It received cross-party parliamentary support.
Mr Porteous Wood paid tribute to the effectiveness of Lord Deer's work on this issue the Lords, and also to the former DPP Lord Macdonald QC, who's legal opinion provided a particularly powerful criticism of the Bill.
