The Modern Glossary & Definitions of Free Speech & Democracy including: history, commentary and analysis of threats 

What is Free  Speech?

'Freedom of speech is the human right to make and receive communications and to be able to express them freely by any responsible means.'  (Defend Campaign)

The Defend Campaign's definition concisely blends free speech and freedom of expression. and builds on the work undertaken by established organisations including an earlier definition by Amnesty International :

'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means. '

Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.'

What is Freedom of Expression? 

It is an acknowledgement that  people can express themselves through  movements,  actions, art forms and much more that is not necessarily confined to speech

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), was incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, This frames free speech within the wider context of  Freedom of Expression

In its own words, the UK campaign group Liberty states:

It means you can defend your rights in UK courts and it compels public organisations – like the Government, police and local councils – to treat everyone equally, with fairness, dignity and respect.  Article 10 of the Human Rights Act protects a right that’s fundamental to our democracy – our freedom of expression is fundamental to our democracy.

It means we’re free to hold opinions and ideas and to share them with others without the State interfering.

Article 10 also protects your right to communicate and express yourself in any medium – including through words, pictures and actions. It’s often used to defend press freedom and protect journalists’ sources.This right covers: Political expression, Artistic expression, and Commercial expression 

Article 10 protects both popular and unpopular expression – including speech that might shock others – subject to certain limitations:

Limitations to Free Speech

Article 10 may be limited in certain circumstances. Any limitation must:

• be covered by law

• be necessary and proportionate

• be for one or more of the following aims:

  • national security, territorial integrity or public safety

  • preventing disorder or crime

  • protecting health

  • protecting other people’s reputation or rights

  • preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence

  • maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

When considering whether free expression should be limited, courts will question whether doing so could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, the value of the particular form of expression and the medium used.

Limiting free expression usually involves restrictions on publication, penalties for publication, requiring journalists to reveal their sources, imposing disciplinary measures or confiscating material.

Do legal limitations mean that Free Speech is under attack in the places where they apply? 

Free Speech is a 'dream-like' ideal often under attack

In 2026, Defend published the modern  concise definition of Free Speech to neatly recognise its relationship to freedom  of expression while acknowleding limitations to their universal existence.

'Freedom of speech is the human right to make and receive communications and to be able to express them freely by any responsible means.'  (Defend Campaign)

Jason Tanner, the founding-Director of the defend Campaign for free speech sets out what  he believes  free speech actually is and its relationship to modern democracy. Jason reveals free speech is an ideal and a goal  that is never achieved universally. This fact is being exploited in the 21st century by 'bad players' who use this vulnerability in free speech to try and present themselves as 'the champions of 'true' free speech' for their own benefit whether to strengthen commercial operations or their power, influence and control more widely.

Speech alone, whether deemed free or not is the genesis of all  political systems, including democracy and is the origins of any form of control of one human over another.  But in 2026  Jason warned that  the term 'Free Speech' is being used against the people because it lacks protection. 

"Free speech or freedom of speech or expression is complex and has very  rarely existed in a literal purist form, if at all . It's an aspirational dream that has evolved as  a  widely misunderstood and often badly explained term throughout the world for far too long."  

The Free Speech concept is without much defence and open to abuse and is currently being weaponised in new ways to  control what gets said and heard. Our options to access a wide range of thoughts and information or to effectively express ourselves are being suffocated by modern-day manipulation including the deployment of algorithms in social media. Research evidence increasingly reveals that the publication and therefore the receiving of communications is couched in an atmosphere of 'smoke and mirrors'. 

To coin a certain word that has risen in prominence in our vocabulary in recent years, free speech is fake, or more accurately, claims that any platform, political party or person can provide and champion truth through universal free speech are fake. The words 'Fake' & 'Truth' have been abused and need to be reset. In the meantime, we should resort to one word, ACCURACY.

Amongst the definitions of free speech both here and elsewhere, Jason Tanner states that some documented and inaccurate claims of social media platforms to be providers of  free speech and news are fake . This was the catalyst for the  defend Campaign for Free Speech to be created.  

Free Speech is rarely found in human existence "where there's more than one person in a room." It may be subtle but someone in that room will usually say more than the other and assert themselves either intentionally or instinctively over the other. 

Furthermore, from a purists angle any concept of universal free speech is impossible because free speech is only effective if there is a logical  equal opportunity to be heard.

With billions of people on the planet, the chance of each individual being heard freely by each of those other billions is clearly  impossible. The maths doesn't add up. 

In earlier times the free-speech-privileged might be the people who could read and write to be able to tell or re-tell a story from a hilltop, step, pulpit or platform. It might also become the limited privilege of those who could access a printing press in the middle ages or own a megaphone as technology progressed. In later times, freedom of speech faces constraint by ownership of radio, television and social media where the  concept of true free speech can be abused and distorted at a scale never seen before. It may also be limited by factors such as access to the knowledge and thoughts held in libraries, schools, books computers, the internet and the latest systems known as Artificial Intelligence or 'cuter' names like Grok, part of Elon Musk's enormous empire.

Tanner proposes we all take better care of an age-old, increasingly vulnerable concept . The most basic steps needn't cost a penny or a dime.

In 2026 a marriage of Fairness with Free Speech is suggested as a way we can all consciously measure and defend Free Speech. 'Fairer Speech' or 'Fairer Free Speech' are more accurate descriptors of the impossible dream of universal free speech. 

This Modern Glossary not only gives the conventional legal and constitutional definitions of free speech and expression, but also acts more extensively to get us to question wild claims to being the only 'Town Square' for free speech and to identify such claims as 'Fake' once the word has had a chance to recover along with Truth; but it's far better to stick to accuracy for both.  Fairness is a simple tool that can urgently be used to help defend and measure progress toward the dream. 

©Jason Tanner 26/10//2026 

Free Speech is mostly defined under the broader principle of Freedom of Expression and is protected by Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) .This also protects the right to have an opinion.  

The UN's membership and treatyt signatories include the USA, UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Russia, China, the European Union, including Greece where ancient democracy originates. Amnesty International provides a digestible introduction to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that seeks to protect Freedom of Expression amongst many other civil liberties.

The UN Declaration was mirrored by the European Convention on Human Rights (signed 1950). 

In the UK, Article 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act protects our right to freedom of expression, which includes free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

In the UK, freedom of speech is legally part of freedom of expression. Some other countries such as the USA interpret  Free Speech in different ways and through the scope of the U.S Constitution's  First Amendment (1791) ,  a century after the English Bill of Rights of 1689 created the foundation for many of the principlesn associated with 'modern democracy'. 

The U.S constitution prohibits the U.S government from making laws that establish an official religion, limit religious freedom, or restrict public expression and protest.  

Constitutional Rights in the USA versus  the UK's Constitutional Monarchy

International governments and commentators such as the Defend Campaign for Free Speech and Democracy based in London, are tracing an emerging chasm in the interpretations of free speech between the leaders representing the economically powerful USA and the substantially bigger populations of  elected governments from the European Union, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 

In 2026, the USA has a population estimated at around 349 million people. The EU by contrast, has a population of 448 million. Additionally,  King Charles III is the Head of State for countries that follow a system known as a Constitutional Monarchy and this collection of independent democratic nation states includes the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Their stance is largely allied to the EU and UN International Law in recognising limitations to free speech; Their combined population  adds another 150 million or so.  These non-U.S populations represent a bloc of people almost twice the size of the USA, notwithstanding many additional nations  also considered allied to the principles of international law.

The U.S Constitution's  First Amendment (1791) emerged more than a century after the English Bill of Rights of 1689 set the foundations for 'modern democracy' that the UK continues to evolve and which has been adopted in various forms across the world to varying degrees of effectiveness. 

Free Speech and The English Bill of Rights 1689

The English Bill of Rights firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech within Parliament – known today as Parliamentary Privilege. It enables anything to be said freely within the jurisdiction of parliament; but that didn't give a green light for people to say absolutely anything else they wanted outside of parliament without consequence. The Bil also includes freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by courts. The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today, acting as a basis for the US Bill of Rights of 1789. Its influence can also be seen in other documents establishing the rights of humans, such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.  

The UK's democratic model, known as a constitutional monarchy, has scope to gradually evolve over time to try and match the changing wishes of the people that make up society. This society of people ultimately elects politicians to make this happen through law. We mustn't forget that ordinary people, throughout history,  have often campaigned hard and ultimately voted for changes in laws designed to protect and represent their wishes 'democratically', though this can feel a frustratingly slow in a fast-paced world.

Free Speech and The U.S Constitution 1789

The USA has a more fixed vision for its population with a standalone written Constitution that also exists within the same fast-paced world mentioned above. Despite the common impression that it is somehow set in stone and fixed forever, amendments can sometimes be used to update its original constitution that forms the basis of how people are expected to live their lives within the USA today.  

It's a little known fact for many, but Democracy is never actually referred to once in the current U.S constitution or the English Bill of Rights though the concept of democracy relies  on fair elections by the people within a framework of law.  

As a republic, the USA does embrace key democratic systems of voting that ultimately give the people the power to decide who governs them. The question facing all democracies is the extent to which these systems are robustly protected or open to manipulation by autocracts or dictators which effectively damage the free voice of the people.

In terms of Freedom of Expression, the U.S constitution prohibits the U.S government from making laws that establish an official religion, limit religious freedom, or restrict public expression and protest. International observers, including the Defend Campaign have noted from documented evidence that these First Amendment Constitutional principles have not been able to stop some very vocal and contrary statements emerging from senior U.S government figures regarding Christianity or Islam, with a well documented tendency, despite the Constitution, to invoke God over Allah  or other figures from non-Christian religions. 

The U.S Constitution, or arguably the interpretation, maintenace and protection of it increasingly  positions the U.S.A through its current political leadership at variance with  much larger population groupings elsewhere in the world such as the emerging UK-Canadian-EU alliance and others.

The Constitutional Clash: The US First Amendment vs. UN Article 19

A critical legal contradiction exists between the American model of free speech and international standards. While the United States signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), its domestic enforcement reveals a sharp philosophical divide:

• The UN/UK/EU/Canada/Commonwealth Alliance Model: Treats free expression as a right paired with a societal responsibility. It permits legal boundaries to protect ordinary citizens from targeted harassment, hate speech, and deliberate destabilisation.

• The US Absolutist Model: Operates on the strict principle that government cannot restrict speech based on content, even if that speech is inaccurate, harmful, or offensive.

Because the US Constitution treats the First Amendment as supreme over international declarations, the US effectively immunises its digital platforms from international regulatory standards. This legal loophole allows a wealthy corporate minority to weaponise "absolute free speech" globally, overriding the democratic protections enacted by sovereign nations elsewhere. The right 'to say anything' is being used to attack other democracies and arguably the people of the USA itself.

Do legal limits on free speech make a mockery of it?

The UK in tandem with international law recognises limits to free speech are necessary. Without  lawful limits,  factors such as hate speech might ultimately crush the fairer free speech of other, less powerful and less amplified individuals who don't own the tools to be heard, such as control of the printing press or ownership of social media platforms and established media, print and broadcast channels & their technologies. 

During the Donald Trump and Elon Musk era, there's been a marked war of words about the extent to which limits need to be applied to free speech. This seemingly contrary need to assert control over free speech is disruptive to a principle that should be owned by the people. Legal and constitutional definitions are currently being inaccurately used in geo-political arguments raging in the first part of the 21st century. Any search engine or artificial intelligence not accurately operating within this context is failing its users and showing a pre-programmed bias. 

You'll find countless excellent interpretations and descriptions of free speech or freedom of speech on line and in the sections above this one. But the need globally to  be more careful with understanding the aspiration that free speech represents is lagging behind an emerging corruption of this ancient vulnerable concept. This seemingly knee jerk call to make changes to help strengthen the defence of free speech  has been highlighted by global events both now and in recent years.

The Defend Campaign identifies this as the marked  period before, during and after Donald Trump became President of the USA  in 2024 and the acquisition of significant communications systems by his close and significantly wealthy ally, Elon Musk. 

It's becoming quite clear that Free speech increasingly involves access to money which can promote, control and suffocate it.  The wealth factor increasingly weakens its potency for the ordinary people it is supposed to protect who may lack the substantial amounts of cash needed to defend themselves against lawsuits intended ultimately to silence them. An external analysis of attempts to end lawsuit threats to free speech is covered in an article in The Canary and spotted by the Defend Campaign

Full research and analysis of our current period triggered by the U.S election is still live as we are currently living the era at the time of writing.

Pundits and politicians need to tread with care while keeping legal and societal expectations for a fairer free speech  (within clear and transparent protective law crafted by elected politicians for the society that elected them) and to act appropriately when boundaries are crossed; 

Accusations of alleged stifling of free speech are being powerfully presented through unbalanced media ownership, wealth and privileged access to the very centre of government. One of the big concerns of late is the privileged access of the businessman, entrepreneur and owner of social media platform X and major communication satellite systems, Elon Musk,  to the heart of the White House in the USA.

Musk's U.S based Starlink provides broadband Internet service in approximately 160 countries and territories and accounts for approximately 75% of all active maneuverable satellites in Earth orbit .  Blended  with ownership of X and the development of Grok Artificial Intelligence there's a clear, unsanctioned imbalance of power due to money and wealth. It There's no effective national let alone international mechanism to check and regulate for national and global security. 

Defend and an increasing body of other organisations and global politicians are concerned that free speech is being weaponized against the very people its supposed to represent and protect. In the UK, the leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey was ahead of his time in raising awareness about threats to free speech. Shortly before his resignation, Defend backed Prime Minister Starmer's direct concerns about the dangers posed by social Media and Elon Musk specifically.

Fake claims to be champions of free speech are being used to destabilise and deceive people and our choice of the word 'fake' is not a coincidence. It is a word 'of the moment' alongside 'truth' but Defend believes that neither measure up to the ultimate goal of ACCURACY which must not be mistaken for being the same as truth, as confusing as this may seem to some.

Donald Trump has without doubt, taken the world if not many of his own citizens by surprise. The world in many ways has entered a live minefield for many citizens caught in the unexpected cross-fire both in the USA and other countries who are actively witnessing what's akin to a regime change as Donald Trump and key allies such as Elon Musk focus on a central mission to 'Make America Great Again' - the MAGA movement. 

By British standards and laws, systems to protect fair elections and in theory, to allow poorer people of society to also be elected to represent their nation appear severely weakened in the USA. But the UK's and EU's regulations to protect people from aspects such as 'hateful free speech' are now being turned against the traditional allies of the USA in efforts that appear to br designed to weaken the sovereign powers of the affected nations despite their own democratic systems governing the way they operate.

It now seems you need money, and a great deal of it to secure power at the White House. Lotteries organised and sponsored by Elon Musk in marginal states to sway voters were seen as apparently acceptable tactics in the U.S but are not seen as fair electioneering or even legal in many other democracies. Rules are being tightened further in the UK as a result and British politicians are amidst investigations in to potential foreign threats to British democracy as they are in France and the EU too. They need to move fast.

People are being 'drugged' by Social Media  to accept 'fake' narratives as 'truth'

Free speech has been weaponised and people repeatedly fed 'fake' narratives in a new type of warfare without tanks that revolves around securing control and taming the very media that should be allowed to ask tougher, fairer questions of politicians.

There have been many well documented threats to established media the so called 'legacy media'  (a term deliberately promoted to demean its status and relevance). 

American broadcasters and newspapers have been subject to big lawsuits and the war on the legacy media was also launched on the UK's BBC , the grandfather of global public broadcasting since transmissions began in 1926. 

Trump is  threatening to sue the BBC for an amount of money that would bankrupt the corporation and see the UK public having to pay the bill in a move never yet witnessed by a statesman of the USA. The irony is that part of Donald Trump's prominence is without doubt due to the Apprentice TV show, a British concept that was first aired and commissioned by the BBC.  Trump is starting to discover that the Corporation and British resolve is much tougher than he thought as the story continues.

Within weeks of this article's text first appearing as a first edition in early 2026, we saw the dramatic decline in the fortunes of the Washington Post with mass redundancies despite its total success in fending off a wasteful series of lawsuits levelled  in an unprecedented way by President Donald Trump.

The dislike of the established media is mirrored and promoted very much as an ongoing theme that Elon Musk is controlling through his ownership of X (Twitter) enabled in a wild-west environment in part by his status as the wealthiest man in the world.  The ability to control the balance and penetration or effectiveness of messages on this major platform has been called into serious question especially with monetisation rewards systems being installed for the most eye catching, and therefore truth-stretching posts. It's system of Community Notes is a response that is too little too late and kicks in once the damage is done. Users of other platforms such as Threads are suggesting the tactics employed are spreading to platforms beyond X.

Even Musk's much heralded AI for Twitter, known as Grok has openly stated that Musk  is deliberately not using readily available technology to protect users of X and  control the negative impact of recurring bots that appear to interfere with the balance, truthfulness and ultimately the accuracy of the platform. There's more information about the effects of message manipulation in Defend's Declining Trust in Elon Musk research article on this site which spurred the creation of the UK's defend campaign for free speech  The same research was first published on Linkedin's Pulse before the formal launch of Defend saw it published here also:   Trust in Elon Musk and X plummets as insider reveals the causes 

 Events have also brought doubts about the veracity of many profiles, the numbers of followers they have and also the location of where they are from. It was extensively used to promote messages in favour of Donald Trump's election and has been heavily championed by Elon Musk and other 'mouthpieces' (mimics)on X to  be the only credible source of Free Speech and the number one source for news in many countries. However I suspect we've got to the stage where it's been over-cooked and now it's unlikely many people can trust the platform for any semblance of balance or  accuracy.  

These efforts which mirror much of what Donald Trump has said have almost blown their cover. Elon Musk and supporters felt common standards of society and regulation were no longer relevant in the 'shouty' world of 'TwitteX'.  This backfired badly when X was extraordinarily too slow, arrogant and insensitive to accept that it's wrong to allow users of Grok to transform images of children and adults into pornographic material without their consent and then publish it on platforms such as X. Elon Musk discovered that a large vocal and global majority of people do not agree this thinking is correct. Not long after this there was talk of rearrangements of ownership of entities such as Grok, but ultimately within the Elon Musk empire. Such changes will inevitably hinder those protective regulatory bodies in different countries  trying to keep up with the current threatening climate. 

Elon Musk has given algorithms a bad name

I'm not sure many people understand the significance of algorithms or what they are which is why campaigns such as defend and others need to urgently help update the population's media literacy and highlight the fairer part of  the free speech dream. I don't remember algorithms directing my free choice to read whatever articles I wanted in whatever newspaper I chose in a shop or TV channel I wanted to watch as I flicked the buttons on the remote control. 

X's  Community  Notes  fail fairer free speech

In terms of fairer free speech and the defence of democracy, algorithms, thanks to Musk, are dead in the water; something better, and designed to be fair by the people is needed. The systems such as Community Notes that X has adopted for controlling untruths is also third rate and does not effectively promote the spread of accurate information. Community Notes has been portrayed by Musk and 'TwitteX' as an innovation but in reality is reactive and requires many people to do the work that fact checkers and editors of credible established media commonly undertook before publication; before the damage is done. It's too convoluted to go through the shabby Community Notes process. It may be an accusation too far to suggest it was deliberately designed that way. 

Jason Tanner says: "I'd be worried about buying his cars and satellites if his attitude to quality, safety and protection demonstrated on 'TwitteX' applied to his other products such as Tesla and Starlink".

Destabilising democracies - The illustrated Elon Musk Bandwagon

Another documented trend is a pattern of almost template style campaigns being launched to destabilise a number of existing democracies. Countries that Jason Tanner's observational research recorded included Ireland /Eire, Australia, Canada, the UK and the EU as a whole. They  were and still are targets of extraordinary bullying. by mysterious , seemingly 'patriotic' profiles that are far from patriotic in some eyes.  The UK itself is constantly being attacked by very unpatriotic so called 'patriot profiles' that systematically bash Keir Starmer and now his successor and the UK government for limiting freedom of speech with baseless claims that the UN or even Nato would take action against the UK or be subject to big tariffs if the nation threatened free speech further. These are entirely false but systematic and endless claims and it could be argued that TwitteX has been the creator if not the catalyst of Britain being Broken, when it's not if you step back for a minute and get off the Elon Musk Bandwagon.

Is this really what Twitter and its staff and those of associated companies pride themselves on and is this really the legacy wants as his contribution to global well-being?

It's also been fascinating to witness how  the Free Speech weapon is used to accuse the UK of being in some sort of draconian speechless society. By contrast I can safely safely reassure the world that that while we still preserve some regulations around fairness on notably powerful media such as  broadcasting, we still have more than 5 very different core TV channels, mainy operating an excellent standard of journalism. 

I found it very telling to see conversations on Threads regarding a well researched and frankly entertaining and revealing programme by the UK's Channel 4 that detailed and exposed 100 confirmed lies of the Master of 'Fake' Mr Donald Trump. Those U.S citizens speaking on Threads openly said that they imagine the programme will have been suppressed in the USA itself. I don't know if it was but they were amazed at the revelation of Donald Trumps 100 lies by Channel 4 which have been listed here and at the time of writing, are available on this (Defend's) website along with a working link to the Channel 4 program which comes and goes in terms of its availability.

Future solutions? - Defend has some ideas it's willing to share...and we'll happily join in the conversation and debate...

Democracy is Government by the people - A form of Government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by a defined group of individuals on behalf of the people. The origins of democracy are attributed to the 5th century Athenians of Greece.  Athens gave us the word "democracy" (demos = people, kratos = power) and direct rule, where citizens (free, not enslaved males) directly made laws in assemblies.

The concept of modern democracy arguably arrives with the removal of power held by the rule of just one person, even with the existence of assemblies or parliaments.

'The impossible dream' of free speech is mentioned in law as it  defines the structure of modern democracy by English standards through the Bill of Rights in 1689. But the aspirational dream of free speech is much older than this.  This shift towards a recognisable modern democracy starts in earnest when the UK became a Republic in 1648 for 10 years as in the 'Quick History of Modern Democracy' set out below.

Modern Democracy saw the assemblies of ancient Greece evolve in to what today the UK might term as councils and parliaments culminating in the House of Commons and the House of Lords at a national level or in the USA a system that created the House of Representatives and the Senate.  But the crucial change was the removal of a single person's ability to overrule everyone else without consultation with the people. 

It started to evolve in to its more recognisable form when England's monarch, King Charles I faced a self-inflicted crisis by going too far and  forcing his own 'parliament of advisors' to declare civil war against him. These advisors were themselves elected but due to the way the system was set up, parliaments consisted of an elite group of people from a very narrow electorate restricted, by law, to a small percentage of the adult male population—estimated at roughly 5%.

The franchise was based on property ownership, with different rules applying to counties and boroughs which were also limited by factors such as age and sex. The rule by monarchs up until Charles I was primarily based on the 'Divine Right of Kings' - bestowed directly upon the monarch by God.  Charles I used this historic 'get-out' clause' when he felt these advisors got in the way of his plans especially when money to realise his wishes became an issue. He resorted to his 'divine right' by increasingly dissolving or closing down his parliament if they obstructed his preferred way of doing things.

A very bloody civil war ensued led by the army commander, Oliver Cromwell. It's a potent reminder not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and demonstrates how western humanity has evolved government very slowly. Our current freedoms have relied on centuries of sacrifice, toil and hard graft with an estimated colossal loss during the civil war running at half a million people killed. The tide turned against the king and the parliamentarians known as the roundheads by their opposition won.

Charles I was captured, tried and executed in 1649. The monarchy was abolished along with the House of Lords, originally comprising of Bishops and senior church representatives who commonly oversaw finances. Oliver Cromwell took control and created the first 'House of Commons' , but he found it too unruly to control and rather ironically felt the need to end it in 1653. He ruled as Lord Protector or head of state in this new republic for 10 years until his death in 1658 when no strong successor emerged.

It wasn't until two years later after a reflection on some of the happier aspects of a monarchical system when compared to Cromwell's religious austerity, that parliament reconvened AND Monarchy was restored, BUT crucially with one big difference - that by LAW the monarch must now always listen to the will of the people via the elected representatives, or MPs. The son of Charles I who the French helped protect (via the Netherlands) was restored as the new  monarch.

The system was tightened and codified by a subsequent BILL OF RIGHTS  dated 1689. The Bill of Rights set out exactly what was expected of the Monarch. It limited royal power and established the supremacy of Parliament. The Monarch could not suspend or create laws, levy taxes or raise a standing army in peacetime without Parliament’s consent. People were now allowed to petition the monarch with grievances and concerns without fear of prosecution. There would now be frequent Parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech granted within Parliament.

This freedom of speech within the confines of parliament by the Bill of Rights is an early indication of free speech being limited by many other circumstances and underlines the limitations of a so called right to free speech, which Jason Tanner from Defend identifies as an impossible concept within large groups or whole populations. The restrictions on true free speech are many and varied. Free speech is governed by society, whether or not enshrined by law which is used to define the level of freedom society has, ideally based on what the electorate tells the elected. But other factors make the concept impossible on a large scale. Factors such as wealth and opportunity can remove a fair playing field in the process of getting elected into parliament. Society (ie the people) may also limit free speech if it encroaches on commonly help interpretations of decency, humanity, fairness, abuse, and inequality of minority groups who find it hard to be heard or to protect themselves.

But free speech will always run the danger of not being free or facing restriction for as long as there's more than one person in a room. In the purist sense, free speech is impossible because free speech is only achieved if there's a matching opportunity to be heard. With billions of people on the planet, the chance of each individual being heard freely by each of those billions of individuals is physically impossible. The maths doesn't add up and some free  speech becomes more free than other free speech. In earlier times the 'free-speech privileged' might be the people who could read and write to be able to tell a story from a hill, step, pulpit or platform or get access to a printing press in the middle ages or own a megaphone as technology progressed. In later times its freedom gets constrained by ownership of radio, television, newspapers and social media where the concept of free speech is not pure and can be abused and distorted. It is better, therefore, to be replaced by an aspiration for 'Fairer Speech'.

An introduction to the history of Modern Democracy

Contrary to what some narratives might suggest, England and the UK are the key originators of modern democracy with England's early incorporation of free speech and legal protection acting as a key component, tracing back to its Bill of Rights dated 1689. This in itself has early origins in a much longer development history dating back to the Magna Carta (15th June 1215) . Both emerged because the head of state, (the King in England's case as opposed to a President in the U.S) had gone too far in ignoring the rights of the ordinary citizen.

The History of Modern Democracy and its relationship with Free Speech

Modern Democracy saw the assemblies of ancient Greece eventually evolve in to what today the UK might term as councils and parliaments culminating in the House of Commons and the House of Lords at a national level or in the USA a system that created the House of Representatives and the Senate.  But the crucial change was the removal of a single person's ability to overrule everyone else without consultation with the people. 

It started to evolve in to its more recognisable form when England's monarch, King Charles I faced a self-inflicted crisis by going too far with his power and forcing forcing his own 'parliament of advisors' to declare civil war against him. These advisors were elected but due to the way the system was set up, parliaments ended up consisting of an elite group of people from a very narrow electorate restricted, by law, to a small percentage of the adult male population—estimated as low as 5%. The franchise was based on property ownership, with different rules applying to counties and boroughs which were also limited by factors such as age and sex. The rule by monarchs up until Charles I was primarily based on the 'Divine Right of Kings' - bestowed directly upon the monarch by God.  Charles I used this historic 'get-out' clause' when he felt these very semi-representative advisors of the people got in his way especially when money was needed to realise his wishes. 

Charles I resorted to his 'divine right' by increasingly dissolving or closing down parliament if members obstructed his preferred way of doing things. Before that point, people were inevitably  wary of anyone who claimed to have the authority of  God . Even today in the 21st century it is observed that  the entity known as God or Allah , Yaweh, Elohim and so on is arguably still being used to  by some to justify their power and control over others. Religions such as Christianity have reminded people of the sin of using 'God's name in vain', though religion, as a separate concept to God, has  often been entangled within power struggles, with or without the creator's blessing, some suggest.

Away from immediate thoughts of religion, a very bloody civil war ensued in England led by the army commander, Oliver Cromwell. It's a potent reminder not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and demonstrates how western humanity has evolved modern government very slowly, at a very considered if not frustrating pace. Our current freedoms have relied on centuries of sacrifice, toil and hard graft by other people, our ancestors with an estimated colossal loss during the civil war alone running at half a million deaths. The tide turned against the king and the parliamentarians coined as the roundheads by their opposition won. Charles I was captured, tried and executed in 1649. The monarchy was abolished along with the House of Lords, originally comprising of Bishops and senior church figures who commonly oversaw the nation's or rather the king's finances. Oliver Cromwell took control and created the first 'House of Commons' , but he found it too unruly to control and rather ironically felt the need to end it in 1653. He ruled as Lord Protector or head of state in this new republic for 10 years until his death in 1658 when no strong successor emerged.

It wasn't until two years later after reflection on some of the happier more liberal day-to-day aspects of a monarchical system, compared to Cromwell's religious austerity, that parliament reconvened AND Monarchy was restored, BUT crucially with one big difference - that by LAW the monarch must now always listen to the will of the people via the elected representatives, or MPs. The son of Charles I who the French helped protect (via the Netherlands) was restored as the new  monarch.

The system was tightened and codified by a subsequent BILL OF RIGHTS  dated 1689. The Bill of Rights set out exactly what was expected of the Monarch. It limited royal power and established the supremacy of Parliament. The Monarch could not suspend or create laws, levy taxes or raise a standing army in peacetime without Parliament’s consent. People were now allowed to petition the monarch with grievances and concerns without fear of prosecution. There would now be frequent Parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech granted within Parliament.

This freedom of speech within the confines of parliament by the Bill of Rights is an early indication of free speech being limited by many other circumstances and underlines the limitations of a so called right to free speech, which Jason Tanner says is more accurately described as an impossible dream within large groups or whole populations. The restrictions on true free speech are many and varied. Free speech is governed by society, whether or not enshrined by law which is used to define the level of freedom society has, ideally based on what the electorate tells the elected. But other factors make the concept impossible on a large scale. Factors such as wealth and opportunity can remove a fair playing field in the process of getting elected into parliament. Society (ie the people) may also limit free speech if it encroaches on commonly held interpretations of decency, humanity, fairness, abuse, and inequality of minority groups who find it hard to be heard or to protect themselves. So should free speech be replaced by fairer speech when describing such systems? 

Democracy is not mentioned in the U.S Constitution

The pace of radical policy change symbolised by President Donald Trump signing off one executive order after another started so very quickly and took the World, let alone many citizens of the USA by surprise. Some suggest it was  a strategy to confuse and overwhelm the people and even the elected houses of government and civil service staff with one major policy change after another, such as with tariffs on imports as an example. All of this was passed off as a legal right of the President to the surprise of many other senior politicians. Many were caught like rabbits in headlights. The rate was so quick that subsequent questions are emerging about the actual extent of the President's powers and the sanctity and therefore the protection of the nation's own constitution.

The USA followed a similar template to the way modern government, including democracy was set up in the UK a century or so earlier, but with one critical difference. In the UK,  in a democratic system set up and backed by law, the monarch (King Charles III) is head of state and is a legally backed protector of the peoples' right to democracy and legally enshrined freedom of expression; 'King and Country' (the people). "For King and Country" was the battle cry of English soldiers willing to lay down their lives for their king and their country. And now it has become our mission, to lay down our lives for our King and our country." Crucially, our armed forces sign their allegiance to the King so  the untested theory is that if democratic government gets corrupted to an extreme such as an unelected dictatorship then he would lead the nation's troops to save the people 'the country' that the forces are tasked to defend. 

Unlike the President of the USA, the King  no longer has any day-to-day powers but his act of signing off legislation in the UK and other countries through his representatives as their head of state is not just symbolic pomp and outdated ceremony. The pomp is best described as an often historic, seemingly extravagant  and dramatised  reminder that if something very extraordinary happens with one of our Prime Ministers or the elected Government, then the people can in theory turn to the King for help. That's because the armed forces sign their allegiance to the 'King & Country' and not to the PM or Government who ordinarily steer the armed forces as our democratically elected representatives on behalf of the head-of-state (the nation). But remove the democratic element and replace it with a dictatorship then the monarch can legally lead the army against insurgents on behalf of the people to restore democracy. 

The system has never been tested since it's creation under the bill of rights was passed in1689, clearly setting out the role of the monarch some 400 years or so ago.  Whether a fan of the monarchy or not, it makes a hereditary monarch a much longer-term prospect that can provide helpful continuity from one opposing government to the next. . Queen Elizabeth II  reigned during the lifetime of many parliaments that came and went but she set the tone and expectation of what the nation expected for democracy.  Elizabeth regularly met with 15 Prime Ministers during her reign which coincided with 14 Presidents ,13 of whom she met. It makes the role of a constitutional monarch totally unique - with a long-term outlook - and overtly separate from party politics and the short-termism of elected governments. The monarch technically asks the leaders of parties who have the majority of the vote to form their Majesty's government on behalf of the nation. The monarch symbolically attends the Houses of Parliament and reads out the forthcoming government agenda , but this is written by the elected government and not by the monarch who does not overtly interfere with government decision making.

If by totally fictitious example our shortest serving Prime Minister, Liz Truss had decided to hold a coup and declare she would lead for as long as she wanted without stepping down, then I'm pretty sure the nation would have taken to the streets and mandated the King to stop the abuse of our democratic system. 

Although the monarch has little everyday power they do have this ultimate sanction which cannot be abused to their advantage because they're reminded pre-coronation  that the last monarch to try that (Charles I) ended up with their head on the chopping block, resulting in this nation being a republic for 10 year post 1649 which marked the end of a very bloody english civil war.  

UK Modern Democracy is a pretty neat system and in theory remains strong and stable as long as law, monarchy and elected government remain entirely independent of each other, which they know and are empowered to be. If one goes wrong then the other two elements can intervene to restore order.  

Is the USA constitution poorly protected?

Events in the USA since the election of Donald Trump have raised serious questions about the effectiveness and protection of the constitution, which is the U.S framework to protect civil rights. The UK does not have a single written constitution but has evolved an intricate web of legislation over time that loosely matches with the demands of the electorate as they evolve.  Fans of this type of constitutional monarchy, such as myself, feel that it helps to keep our constitutional framework fairly up-to-date and relevant whereas the U.S constitution seems more fixed causing historic questions of the interpretation of clauses such as the right to bear arms (carry guns) .

The UK's framework dates back to the principles started by the Great Charter or Magna Carter of 1215, (The background image on all the pages of my website (https://jasontanner.uk ) is an intricate carving depicting King John kneeling before 'his people' for the first time,  as he gives them new rights  as law starts to play its role in protecting the nation's citizens. It also represents the start of dismantling the divine power that monarch's used to have but which is now radically reduced the impression that anti-royalists may have. Furthermore, what many sceptics and others don't realise or were not taught in school is that the King is the equivalent of a 'Break glass in emergency' back-up should elected government be badly corrupted or a dictator takes hold.

The protective set-up in the USA seems less clear. The President is the commander in chief of U.S armed forces and appears to exert more proactive, direct control and influence  over them in ways not permitted for the UK's head of state in ordinary times. The role of President has grown in ways that the UK's head of state has not, but that may have tipped the balance of protection for observing constitutional rights, procedures and protection for the people of the USA.

From before the 7th century to the 11th century, councils of influential men – barons and bishops – were called together by Monarchs to advise them on how to rule. Those councils were an early version of our modern Parliament. In England, relations between the King John and these powerful advisers became a struggle for control. In 1215, King John was forced to agree to a 'Great Charter' – Magna Carta in Latin – which limited the Monarch’s authority. This was the first time an English Monarch formally recognised that their subjects - or rather a narrow selection of subjects -  had proper legal rights, such as the right not to be condemned without a trial. Magna Carta gave barons and bishops the right to be consulted before new taxes could be levied. This sees the emergence of the law taking shape for the first time as a notional protector of the people, but the divine right principle still exists until the Civil War transformed England into a Republic for 10 years and finally led to the bill of rights in 1689.

No - but we should use  fairness as a way to measure and protect free speech for the ordinary citizens it was originally intended for

Fairer speech is a defensive shield for the eternal dream of achieving a state of total 'Free Speech' and comes at a moment when 'Free Speech' has been seized as a weapon against the very people it was meant for. Free Speech has been  inaccurately named at best, or lazily applied at worst, and has liberally been claimed to exist for large groups, communities, entire populations or simply a couple in isolation, but it has become critically endangered as a result by the adoption of  self-interested players claiming to have found the true route to complete and universal free speech. Much of Defend's research and analysis concentrates on posts tracked on the social media platform X, (formerly Twitter) and owned by the wealthy billionnaire, Elon Musk, a close ally of Donald Trump. Much of their reported on X and other platforms and media reflects and reinfotrces many themes coming from the White House. In the build-up to the U.S midterm elections of 2026, defend's Director, Jason Tanner hypothesises about a future President Musk based on his involvement with Starlink communications satellites from SpaceX and his privileged access to the White House. This isn't constitutionally possible, but there may be ways around it.

The call to make 'Fairer' a more formal addition to Free Speech is a concept that has not been traced strongly as yet to other commentators or philosophers as a definitive replacement for Free Speech and research indicates it may not have existed in print widely, if at all,  despite its simplicity.  

Some writers have mentioned that free speech could be fairer, but we need to be more assertive than that. 

Jason Tanner highlights that fairer free speech is one of the foundations of the the defend campaign to help foster debate and encourage humanity to prioritise and protect a valued, key pillar of our modern democratic world.  Our use of 'Free Speech' alone could often be strengthened with fairer free speech or even parked to one side at times in favour of 'fair speech', but that eternal dream of free speech that has 2,500 years of heritage can't be wiped out, but it can be strengthened and measured through Fairness ©Jason Tanner 2026 

How does fake news work?

Fake news is often spread through fake news websites, which, in an attempt to gain credibility, often emulate authentic news sources. According to research, social media enables false claims to spread quickly – more quickly, in fact, than real news. Fake news spreads rapidly because it’s typically designed to grab attention and appeal to emotions – which is why it often features outlandish claims or stories which provoke anger or fear.

Social media feeds often prioritize content based on engagement metrics – that is, how often it’s shared and liked – rather than how accurate or well-researched it is. This approach can allow clickbait, hyperbole, and misinformation to spread widely. Social media companies are seen as platforms rather than publishers, which means they don’t have the same legal liabilities as traditional media outlets – although this may change as the political and legal landscape evolves.

The Defend Campaign has isolated an article about Free Speech and Algorithms first published by the cyber security firm Kapersky. It recommends the article as clearly and well written irrespective of separate concerns about the company's relationship with Russia. The article is one of a collection of resources being collated by the Defend Campaign to help people understand all aspects of free speech for democracy

Why eliminate Truth & Fake in favour of Accuracy? 

In recent times, understanding the  current use of the words Truth, Fake and History is critical for understanding the challenges of defining free speech. The way that all of these words are used have drawn a deceptive veil over their original definitions.

Jason Tanner urges further caution: “... I’ve developed a warning that I issue to people about to listen to me speak about the evolution of free speech and democracy. It revolves around a widely misunderstood word that gives  us a warning within the word itself. The word is ‘His-Story'. My audience are about to hear me present ‘his-story' or ‘my-story’,  but it's also highly possible that ‘her-story’ may be even more accurate".

“And that leads to the other very abused words that surround us every day at the moment. Those words are ‘Truth’ and ‘Fake’. Truth might as well be re-written more accurately as ‘his-truth’. Accuracy is a far more…'accurate' measuring stick to try and navigate the information jungle we are now presented with.

"Fake is the opposite of Truth. But If the word 'Truth' is being manipulated then people should naturally assume that the word 'Fake' is also being tampered with too."

"Fake and Truth are now being used as weapons against the people and Free Speech has been kidnapped and acts under duress as their spokesman."

Although work is in eternal progress, Defend will work to monitor the use and abuse of language in regards to the protection of fairer free speech. 

"Eliminating Truth & Fake in favour of ACCURACY to secure a future for fairer free speech is needed" according to Defend's founder, Jason Tanner.