Protecting Freedom of Speech While Building Social Cohesion: A Local Government Dilemma

In an era marked by polarising global events, rising misinformation, and deepening social divides, local government faces a profound and urgent challenge: how do we protect the right to freedom of speech while ensuring social cohesion among the communities we serve?

This is not merely a philosophical question it is a practical one, with real-world implications for elected members, officers, and residents alike. The tension between individual liberty and collective harmony is playing out daily in council chambers, community centres, and online forums. From protests sparked by international conflicts to local debates on housing, migration, and identity, the stakes are high and the margins for error are narrow.

Local government is uniquely placed at the intersection of public discourse and community wellbeing. Councils are not only service providers they are democratic institutions, conveners of dialogue, and guardians of civic space. In this role, they must uphold the principles of free expression while actively working to prevent division, discrimination, and harm.

The Democratic Bedrock: Free Speech

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. It enables scrutiny of power, the exchange of ideas, and the airing of grievances. As Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights affirms:

“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.”

Yet, this right is not absolute. It may be restricted to protect national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others. In practice, this means that speech which incites hatred, violence, or discrimination can and should be curtailed. Sir Keir Starmer recently stated:

“We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time,” adding that it must be guarded “jealously and fiercely.”

This sentiment reflects a deep national commitment to liberty. But it also raises a critical question: what happens when free speech becomes a vehicle for division, hatred, or intimidation?

In recent years, we’ve seen how unmoderated platforms and unchecked rhetoric can fuel social unrest. The rise in hate crimes, the spread of conspiracy theories, and the targeting of minority groups are not abstract concerns they are lived realities in towns and cities across the UK.

Local authorities have witnessed firsthand how global events such as conflicts in the Middle East, refugee crises, or political upheaval can spark local tensions. These tensions often manifest in protests, online abuse, and community fractures. In such moments, the challenge is not simply to allow speech, but to curate space for constructive dialogue while preventing harm.

The dilemma is this: how do we ensure that people have the opportunity to have their voice heard, but in doing so, don’t allow hatred or divides to form between different groups within the community?

This is where the role of local government becomes both delicate and decisive. Councils must walk a tightrope defending democratic freedoms while actively promoting inclusion, tolerance, and mutual respect.

The Rising Tide of Tension

The challenge of balancing freedom of speech with social cohesion is not theoretical it is unfolding in real time across the UK. Local authorities are increasingly finding themselves at the epicentre of community tensions, often sparked by global events but felt acutely at the neighbourhood level. According to the Home Office, there were 140,561 hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. While this marked a modest 5% decrease overall, the underlying trends are deeply concerning. Religious hate crimes surged by 25%, driven by a sharp rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Of these offences:

• Over 70% were racially motivated, accounting for nearly 99,000 incidents.

• 3,282 religious hate crimes targeted Jewish people more than double the previous year.

• Anti-Muslim hate crimes also rose significantly, though to a lesser extent.

These figures are not just statistics they represent real harm, fear, and division within communities. They reflect a troubling reality: international events are fuelling domestic discord, and the ripple effects are being felt in schools, places of worship, council meetings, and online spaces.

Freedom-Restricting Harassment

The Khan Review (2024), commissioned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, offers a stark warning. It identifies a “growing and dangerous climate of threatening and intimidatory harassment” that is “poisoning the lifeblood of our public and civic life.” This phenomenon termed freedom-restricting harassment is defined as:

“Threatening, intimidatory or abusive harassment online and/or offline which is intended to make people or institutions censor or self-censor out of fear.”

This is not limited to elected officials or high-profile figures. It is increasingly affecting teachers, council officers, community leaders, and ordinary residents. The review found that:

• 76% of respondents said they had restricted expressing their personal views in public due to fear of harassment.

• 44% had witnessed such harassment online, and 44% in person.

This climate of fear and self-censorship undermines the very principles of democratic engagement. When individuals feel unable to speak freely whether about their identity, beliefs, or political views the public square becomes narrower, less inclusive, and more volatile.

The Khan Review cites the case of a teacher at Batley Grammar School who was forced into hiding after protests erupted over classroom content. The review criticised local authorities and police for failing to grasp the seriousness of the trauma experienced, noting a “disproportionate concern for not causing offence” to those engaging in intimidation. This example illustrates how well-intentioned caution can inadvertently embolden those who seek to silence others.

Implications for Local Government

Local authorities are increasingly struggling to contain the fallout from these tensions. The Khan Review highlights that councils in places like Oldham, Stoke-on-Trent, and Barrow-in-Furness have faced serious democratic disruption due to far-right and Islamist group activity. In some areas, there is no infrastructure in place to tackle conspiracy theories, disinformation, and harassment. This erosion of civic trust and democratic resilience is not just a risk it is a reality. And it places local government in a pivotal position: to either reinforce cohesion or allow division to deepen.

Councils must now ask themselves:

• Are we equipped to respond to hate incidents swiftly and effectively?

• Do our staff feel safe expressing their views or enforcing policies?

• Are we fostering environments where diverse voices can be heard without fear?

The answers to these questions will shape not only the health of local democracy but the wellbeing of the communities we serve.

Lessons Learned from Local Tensions

Batley Grammar School – Lesson: Silence Enables Intimidation

What happened: A teacher was forced into hiding after showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in a lesson. Authorities failed to publicly defend the teacher’s right to facilitate discussion, prioritising appeasement over protection.

Lesson learned: When public institutions fail to stand up for democratic principles especially in the face of intimidation they risk emboldening those who seek to silence others. Silence can be interpreted as complicity, and a lack of clear messaging can leave staff and communities vulnerable.

Prevention strategy:

• Develop rapid response protocols for incidents involving threats to staff or democratic norms.

• Ensure public statements from elected members and senior officers affirm the right to lawful expression and condemn intimidation.

• Provide training for school governors and council officers on handling controversial content and safeguarding staff.

Oldham – Lesson: Community Solidarity Is a Powerful Counterforce

What happened: Far-right groups targeted Oldham following national grooming gang coverage. They attempted to exploit local grievances, but residents responded with peaceful counter-protests and unity.

Lesson learned: Community resilience can be cultivated. When local leaders engage openly with residents and foster inclusive narratives, extremist attempts to divide are less likely to succeed.

Prevention strategy:

• Invest in community engagement teams that build trust across ethnic, religious, and political lines.

• Support grassroots organisations that promote dialogue and counter hate.

• Use local media and social platforms to amplify positive stories of unity and shared values.

Stoke-on-Trent – Lesson: Legal Speech Can Still Be Harmful

What happened: Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir held meetings near asylum seeker accommodation, raising concerns about radicalisation. Their messaging was lawful but ideologically extreme.

Lesson learned: Not all threats to cohesion come from illegal activity. Lawful but harmful speech can still undermine trust, especially when it targets vulnerable populations or promotes divisive ideologies.

Prevention strategy:

• Strengthen Prevent and safeguarding partnerships between councils, police, and community groups.

• Monitor ideological activity near sensitive sites (e.g. schools, refugee housing) and engage proactively with affected communities.

• Provide civic education programmes that promote critical thinking, democratic values, and respectful debate.

Where Is the Line?

The legal framework in the United Kingdom provides strong protections for freedom of expression, but it also sets clear boundaries particularly when speech crosses into incitement, discrimination, or harm. This balance is reflected in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression but allows for restrictions that are “necessary in a democratic society” to protect public safety, prevent disorder, and safeguard the rights of others.

Legal Boundaries

Several key pieces of legislation define the limits of lawful speech in the UK:

• The Public Order Act 1986 criminalises threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred. This applies even in private settings if the speech is likely to be heard or seen by others.

• The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 extends these protections to religious groups, making it an offence to use threatening words or behaviour with the intent to stir up religious hatred. Importantly, the Act also includes a safeguard clause that protects the right to criticise, ridicule, or express dislike of religions and belief systems.

• The Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending messages via public electronic networks that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing.

These laws reflect a fundamental principle: freedom of speech does not include the freedom to incite hatred or violence. However, the threshold for prosecution is high, and the interpretation of what constitutes “threatening” or “abusive” speech can be subjective and context-dependent.

Navigating the Grey Areas

The line between protected speech and unlawful speech is thin and often blurred. Overreach risks stifling legitimate dissent, especially when authorities act pre-emptively or inconsistently. Conversely, under-regulation allows harmful narratives to flourish, particularly online, where misinformation and hate speech can spread rapidly and with little accountability.

As Dr Elizabeth Peatfield, Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice at Liverpool John Moores University, notes:

“Balancing the right to free speech with the need to mitigate its potential harms is a persistent issue requiring careful navigation. The rapid dissemination of information through digital platforms has democratised communication, but also enabled the spread of misinformation and hate speech, which can undermine public trust and democratic process.”

This tension is especially pronounced in local government, where officers and elected members must respond to community concerns, uphold democratic values, and maintain public order all while respecting individual liberties.

Implications for Local Government

Local authorities must tread carefully when moderating speech in public forums, council meetings, and community events. They must ask:

• Is the speech lawful but offensive, or does it cross into unlawful incitement?

• Are restrictions being applied consistently and proportionately?

• Are staff and elected members trained to recognise and respond to harmful speech without suppressing legitimate expression?

The Online Safety Act adds another layer of complexity, requiring platforms to remove illegal content proactively. While this helps tackle digital hate speech, it also raises concerns about censorship and the chilling effect on public discourse. Ultimately, the line is not fixed it shifts with context, intent, and impact. Local government must be equipped to interpret and apply the law fairly, while fostering environments where diverse voices can be heard without fear or harm.

What Can Elected Members and Officers Do?

Local government plays a pivotal role in shaping the tone, safety, and inclusivity of public discourse. Elected members and officers are not just administrators they are civic leaders, community conveners, and guardians of democratic space. In times of heightened tension, their actions can either reinforce cohesion or inadvertently deepen divides.

Elected Members

Elected councillors are often the most visible representatives of local democracy. Their words carry weight, and their behaviour sets the tone for civic engagement.

Model respectful discourse Councillors should lead by example in how they communicate both in public meetings and on social media. Language that promotes unity, empathy, and understanding helps to de-escalate tensions. Avoiding inflammatory rhetoric is not about silencing passion; it’s about ensuring that passion does not become polarisation.

Engage across divides Councillors should actively seek out dialogue with groups they may not naturally align with. Hosting inclusive forums, attending interfaith events, and participating in community listening sessions can help bridge divides and build trust. These spaces should be designed to allow people to speak freely, but with clear ground rules that prevent abuse or intimidation.

Challenge misinformation In an age of viral falsehoods, elected members have a duty to speak truth. This means sharing verified information, correcting myths, and working with trusted community leaders to amplify accurate narratives. Councillors should be equipped with media literacy training and access to reliable sources to help them fulfil this role.

Officers

Council officers are responsible for implementing policy, managing services, and maintaining public order. Their behind-the-scenes work is critical to ensuring that communities remain safe, informed, and cohesive.

Monitor tensions Officers should use tools such as tension monitoring systems, community intelligence networks, and social media analysis to detect early signs of unrest. This allows for proactive intervention before issues escalate. Collaboration with police, schools, and voluntary sector organisations is key to building a full picture of emerging risks.

Build trust Relationships with marginalised groups, faith communities, and youth organisations must be nurtured consistently not just in times of crisis. Officers should invest in long-term engagement strategies that prioritise listening, transparency, and co-design. Trust is the foundation of resilience.

Respond swiftly When hate incidents or misinformation arise, councils must act quickly and decisively. This includes having clear protocols for reporting, investigating, and communicating about incidents. Officers should be trained to handle sensitive situations with cultural competence and emotional intelligence.

Joint Actions

Some of the most effective interventions come from collaboration between elected members and officers. Together, they can create a civic culture that values both freedom and responsibility.

Create safe spaces for dialogue Councils should facilitate structured conversations where residents can express views without fear of reprisal. These might include town hall meetings, youth panels, or community assemblies. The goal is not to reach consensus, but to foster mutual understanding and respectful disagreement.

Educate on rights and responsibilities Freedom of speech is a right but it comes with responsibilities. Councils can run public education campaigns, workshops, and school programmes that explain the boundaries of lawful expression and the importance of civic respect. This helps residents understand not just what they can say, but how they can say it constructively.

Support victims of hate Robust reporting mechanisms must be in place for those affected by hate speech or harassment. This includes emotional support services, legal guidance, and community reassurance. Councils should ensure that victims feel heard, protected, and empowered to continue participating in public life.

Examples of Successful Council Initiatives

1. Staffordshire County Council – Community Champions Network

To tackle misinformation and build trust during the pandemic and beyond, Staffordshire County Council launched a Community Champions Network. This initiative trained trusted local voices faith leaders, youth workers, and community organisers to share accurate information and dispel myths within their communities. The champions acted as a bridge between the council and residents, helping to reduce vaccine hesitancy and counter divisive narratives .

Lesson: Empowering local voices builds credibility and resilience against misinformation.

2. Southwark Council – ‘We Walworth’ Engagement Programme

Southwark Council reimagined its approach to community engagement through the ‘We Walworth’ initiative. Instead of traditional consultations, the council used creative methods like street pop-ups, storytelling sessions, and visual mapping to understand residents’ lived experiences. This helped surface concerns around gentrification, identity, and belonging, and led to more inclusive urban planning decisions .

Lesson: Creative engagement methods can reach seldom-heard voices and foster inclusive dialogue.

3. North of Tyne Combined Authority – Equalities Assembly

To better understand what “good employment” means to diverse communities, the North of Tyne Combined Authority launched an Equalities Assembly. This brought together residents from marginalised backgrounds to co-design employment policies and share lived experiences of discrimination and exclusion. The assembly informed regional strategies on inclusive growth and workforce diversity .

Lesson: Co-designing policy with underrepresented groups strengthens legitimacy and cohesion.

4. Wigan Council – ‘Love is Not Abuse’ Campaign

Wigan Council worked with survivors of domestic violence to co-create the award-winning ‘Love is Not Abuse’ campaign. Survivors shaped the messaging, visuals, and outreach strategy, ensuring authenticity and impact. The campaign not only raised awareness but also built solidarity across communities affected by abuse.

Lesson: Lived experience should guide public messaging especially on sensitive issues.

5. Bristol City Council – Participatory Budgeting

Bristol City Council revolutionised its community funding process by introducing participatory budgeting. Residents were invited to propose and vote on local projects, from youth centres to green spaces. This democratic approach increased transparency, trust, and civic pride, particularly in areas with historically low engagement .

Lesson: Giving communities control over resources fosters ownership and unity.

6. Cheshire East Council – People's Panel on Cost of Living

In response to rising economic pressures, Cheshire East Council convened a People’s Panel to explore the impact of the cost-of-living crisis. Residents shared their experiences and proposed solutions, which were then fed directly into council policy. The panel helped humanise the crisis and build empathy across socioeconomic divides .

Lesson: Inclusive dialogue around shared challenges can unite communities across class lines.

A Call for Balance

As Winston Churchill once remarked, “Everyone is in favour of free speech… but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” His words, though spoken decades ago, remain strikingly relevant today. They remind us that freedom of speech is not just about the right to speak it is also about the responsibility to listen, to tolerate disagreement, and to uphold the dignity of others in the process.

For local government, the challenge is not simply to protect the right to speak, but to ensure that speech does not become a weapon used to divide, intimidate, or silence. In an increasingly polarised world, where global events reverberate through local communities, this task has never been more complex or more urgent. The goal is not censorship it is cohesion. And achieving that requires more than policy and procedure. It demands courage to stand up to intimidation, clarity in defining the boundaries of lawful expression, and compassion in responding to those who feel unheard or unsafe.

Local government must be the space where difficult conversations can happen without fear, where diverse voices are welcomed, and where disagreement is not a threat but a sign of democratic vitality. This is not easy work. It requires elected members and officers to be both principled and pragmatic, to hold space for difference while protecting the common good.

Ultimately, the strength of our democracy lies not in the absence of conflict, but in our ability to manage it with integrity. By fostering respectful dialogue, challenging harmful narratives, and supporting those most vulnerable to hate and exclusion, councils can help build communities that are not only free but also fair, inclusive, and resilient.

This is the balance we must strike. And it begins with us.