What is Free Speech & Democracy? 

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 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 the room. Any concept of more universal free speech is indeed impossible because free speech is only effective if there is the equal 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 could apply to those who could 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'.

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? 

It's a fact that free speech rarely exists as a true reality, writes the commentator and advocate for defending free speech, Jason Tanner. To coin a certain word that has permeated our vocabulary in recent years, free speech is fake, or more accurately, claims to have universal free speech are fake. In 2026 I propose the term should be replaced more accurately by what users of the term and campaigners really mean which is 'Fairer Speech'.

Free speech will always run the danger of not being truly free and facing restriction for as long as there's more than one person 'in a room'. And any concept of universal free speech is impossible because free speech is only effective if there is a vital and  equal 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. 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 get access to a printing press in the middle ages or own a megaphone as technology progressed. In later times its freedom faces constraint by ownership of radio, television and social media where the  concept of true free speech can be abused and distorted. It can also be limited by simpler factors such as access to the knowledge and thoughts held in libraries, schools, books computers, the internet and new systems  labelled as Artificial Intelligence. 

Free speech as a pure concept will always be something that has rarely existed, if at all in most realities. It is always in danger of facing restriction for as long as there's 'more than one person in the room.' Therefore you could conclude that real free speech only exists in its pure state when we talk to ourselves - but for the moment we will leave that thought to other philosophers, writes Jason Tanner.

Any concept of extensive universal free speech is largely impossible because free speech is only effective when there's the equal opportunity to be heard freely by  other people. With billions of people on the planet, the chance of each individual being heard freely by a room full of people let alone all the billions on this planet  is physically impossible. There's also no guarantee that one person would be interested in the speech of another in the first place.

The maths doesn't add up and some '$RE£' speech becomes more free than other free speech. In earlier times the FSP or what Jason Tanner refers to as the  'free-speech-privileged' might be the people who could read and write or be able to tell a story from a hilltop, step, pulpit or platform. It might be better achieved by those who had access to a printing press in the middle ages or owned a megaphone. In later times, freedom gets constrained by the ownership of the radio, television, newspapers and social media enterprises where the concept of free speech remains an aspiration as opposed to a reality.  But today the much misunderstood dream of Free Speech is now being corrupted and exploited to give credibility to platforms such as X. It is being weaponised and used to deceive people into a new way of thinking and a new type of control. 

The public need to learn how to watch out for this and to be helped to understand whats going on. The introduction of fair or fairer free speech or simply fair speech may lead to better understanding and therefore defence of what the Free Speech dream actually is. 

You'll find countless excellent interpretations and descriptions of free speech or freedom of speech on line but the move globally to  being more careful with understanding the aspiration that free speech represents is lagging behind the abuse of the concept. This seemingly knee jerk call to make changes  has been highlighted by global events within the last year or so. This is the marked  period before, during and after Donald Trump became President of the USA  in 2024.

Full research and analysis of our current period triggered by the U.S election is still live as we are still in that era at the start of 2026. Pundits and politicians need to tread with care while keeping legal and societal expectations for fairer free speech  (within clear and transparent protective law crafted by elected politicians for the people) and to act appropriately when boundaries are crossed; Accusations of alleged stifling of free speech are being powerfully turned against the very people its supposed to represent. Fake claims to free speech are being used to destabilise and deceive people. The choice of the word 'fake' is not a coincidence.

Donald Trump has without doubt, taken the world if not many of his own citizens by surprise. It's a live minefield for many citizens caught in an unexpected cross-fire both in the USA and other countries who are actively witnessing what some have described as a regime change as Donald Trump and key allies such as Elon Musk focus on a key mission to 'Make America Great Again' - the MAGA movement. By British standards and laws, systems to protect fair elections and in theory, to allow the poorest people of society to also be elected to represent their nation appear severely weakened in the USA. It 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 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 launching investigations in to potential foreign threats to British democracy. They need to move fast.

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

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 asking tougher, fairer questions of politicians. There have been many well documented threats to the so called 'legacy media'  (a term in itself deliberately pushed 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 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 paying the bill in a move never yet witnessed by a statesman of the USA. Within weeks of this text being drafted, we've seen the demise of the Washington Post.

The dislike of the established media is mirrored and promoted very much 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 . Users of other platforms such as Threads are suggesting it is spreading 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 truthfulness and balance of the platform. There's more infomation about the effects of message manipulation in this research article which spurred the creation of the UK's defend campaign :  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' 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 think 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 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 'patriot profiles' that systematically bash Keir Starmer 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. 

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.

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.

Fairer speech is a defensive weapon for the dream-like reality of 'Free Speech' and comes at a moment when 'Free Speech' has been seized as a weapon against its own people. Free Speech has been  inaccurately 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 dangerous as a result by the adoption of  more sinister players claiming to have found the true route to free speech. The call to make the switch 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,  until now, 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 fair speech as one of the foundations of the the UK's defend campaign to foster debate and encouraging humanity to prioritise and protect a valued, key pillar of our modern democratic world.  Our use of 'Free Speech' alone should now be referenced with fairer free speech or even parked to one side in favour of 'fair speech'.  ©Jason Tanner 2026