New Tax Talk Censorship Laws in the UK Illegitimate, but can they be legal?
In the US, we take freedom of speech seriously: as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In the UK: not so much.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Imagine a country where you have to report to a government authority conversations which you have: conversations about completely legal things like baseball, the best new Cadillac, or wealth planning for retirement.
Imagine then a country where the government says that you are not allowed even to have those conversations.
The penalties for non-reporting, or breaching such prior restraint? Well, in the UK, their government now proposes to fine you $millions or even send you to jail.
UNFREE UK
The UK is already performing badly in world free speech indexes:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/25/uk-placed-in-third-tier-in-global-index-of-free-expression
UK placed in third tier in global index of free expression
Index on Censorship lists UK as only ‘partially' open’ in every key metric for the year 2021
The UK has been ranked only in the third tier of a new global index of freedom of expression due to what was described as the “chilling effect” of government policies, policing and intimidation of journalists in the legal system.
Countries including Israel, Chile, Jamaica and virtually every other western European state were all ranked ahead of the UK in the measure compiled by the advocacy group Index on Censorship.
The UK was listed as only Partially Open in every key metric for the year 2021 – covering
A GLOBAL TREND
https://futurefreespeech.org/the-free-speech-recession-hits-home/
The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges in 2023. Even open democracies have implemented restrictive measures. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) exemplifies this trend, the European Commission’s aggressive enforcement of which has raised concerns among rights groups. The Commission demands the removal of content classified as “hate speech,” “terrorist content,” or “disinformation” from major social media platforms, threatening significant fines for non-compliance. This approach has sparked accusations of overreach and violation of international human rights standards. Similarly, the UK’s Online Safety Act made law in October 2023, has raised alarms about potential censorship. The Act’s stringent regulations and substantial financial penalties for not removing illegal content could inadvertently lead to the suppression of lawful speech. In the realm of journalism, criminal defamation laws pose a significant threat. Cases like Italian reporter Roberto Saviano, penalized for criticizing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and Chilean editor Felipe Soto, reprimanded for an article criticizing a public official, highlight the risks for journalists and critics in democratic states. Denmark’s reintroduction of a blasphemy ban, unenforced since 1946 and abolished in 2017, is another stark reminder that citizens of open democracies cannot take well-established speech protections for granted.
The right to protest has also been curtailed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. France and Germany have imposed broad bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing hate speech and public order concerns. Artistic freedom is not immune either, as seen in South Korea, where a government body canceled a sensitive exhibition in the National Parliament due to an unflattering portrayal of the country’s president. The concerns over mis- and disinformation have prompted the Australian government to propose a sweeping misinformation bill that critics say will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of expression Down Under.
But these dramatic erosions of freedom of expression in democracies are not isolated events. They are part of a broader and global free speech recession that has afflicted the heartland of free expression in open democracies, and which threatens to roll back hard-won freedoms.
TERRORISM AND TAXATION
You would expect the most restrictions on free speech to be directed at terrorism and its support. But in the UK you would be wrong:
· Talk about terrorism and you don’t have to report it
· Talk about tax and you do
· No law prohibits you from talking about terrorism, unless directing actual planned terrorist activity
· UK tax law prohibits you from talking about tax
Not all tax: not yet. Only tax matters which HMRC (the IRS equivalent in the UK) deem to be objectionable. Which can be anything.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disclosure-of-tax-avoidance-schemes-guidance
There is a test: if the tax talk is about matters which may result in you having a lower tax bill than if you did what might produce the highest tax bill, then that is a “tax advantage”. To talk about a “tax advantage” is illegal. It is prohibited on pain of imprisonment to talk about a “tax advantage”.
Not having a Constitution, the UK does have human rights legislation: Human Rights Act 1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Compulsory reporting and prior restraint both clearly breach Article 10, which is cast in similar terms to the 1st Amendment:
Article 10 Freedom of expression
1 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In Court filings in a 2025 case, the constitutional validity of a prior restraint order from HMRC (a “Stope Notice”) has been challenged. The UK government has admitted that Article 10 rights are infringed.
So it may be that the UK courts will reinstate a country in which you can freely and without hindrance have conversations about completely legal things like baseball, the best new Cadillac, or wealth planning for retirement.