Free speech, and where (if anywhere) there should be limits on free speech, is a subject that skeptics spend a lot of time thinking about. It’s a subject that seems straightforward on the surface, but gets more complicated the more time you spend genuinely thinking it through.
At the simplest level, there are those who say that we all have a right to free speech, and nobody’s right to that should ever be infringed upon. But such an absolutist position rarely holds up to scrutiny. Do we have the right to make false statements during financial transactions? We all accept that we do not have that right – we call that ‘fraud’, and we’re all happy to accept that our free speech doesn’t give us the right to commit fraud.
What about the right to yell racial slurs at people, do we have a free speech right to do that? Most, though not all of us, would concede that we don’t – that’s hate speech and discrimination. What about the right to make unwanted sexual remarks at people? Again, most – though definitely not all – will recognise that there’s a line there, and that crossing that line strays from free speech into sexual harassment. People will disagree over where that line lies – because some will feel that anything unwanted is by definition wrong, and others will try to excuse behaviours with defences like “deep down, they’re fine with it” and “well, how is anyone meant to flirt these days, it’s PC gone mad”. But most of us agree that there is a line there.
And of course, we have the defence of comedy: well, it’s only a joke, can’t you take a joke, we have to be able to joke about everything, after all, it’s a comedian’s job to push boundaries, even if people get offended by it. Though, when one of those comedians is criticised, inevitably they and their legion of diehard fans react with immediate and visceral offence – because, while they tell you it’s OK to joke about anything, in practice what they mean is it’s fine to joke about everything other than the thing they care about. Or to put it another way, when comedians fill their Netflix specials with cheap barbs at the expense of marginalised people, they’re not pushing boundaries, they’re showing you which targets they don’t care about.
The more emotive and sensitive the subject, the more skill is required to write jokes about it… if you try juggling knives when you haven’t the skill to do it, you can’t complain when you cut yourself.
Personally, for what it’s worth, I do think it’s important that comedians have the freedom to joke about anything at all, it’s just that the more emotive and sensitive the subject, the more skill is required to write jokes about it. If you’re juggling balls and clubs, you don’t have to be very skilful to pull it off, but if you try juggling knives when you haven’t the skill to do it, you can’t complain when you cut yourself.
I’m someone who cares a lot about the need for free speech, but I am also deeply suspicious of people who claim to be free speech absolutists, as often they are either people who subscribe glibly to a position they haven’t fully thought through, or they are very aware that what they mean is the freedom to say things that they personally agree with. And with that in mind, I want to consider Toby Young’s Free Speech Union.
Toby Young’s version of scepticism
The Free Speech Union describes itself as a non-partisan, mass membership public interest body that stands up for speech rights. And according to their website, they “champion the right of people from all walks of life to express themselves without fear of punishment or persecution”.
And these sound like noble goals and the kind that, on the face of it, any skeptic should be happy to endorse. It is also why science charity Sense About Science decided it a worthwhile endeavour to partner with the Free Speech Union to put on a series of lectures on the topic of science and free speech, culminating in May 2024’s event “Science Under Pressure — Restoring Public Confidence”, a conversation between the director of Sense About Science, Tracey Brown, and the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Toby Young.
This, to me, seemed extraordinarily misguided. While the event blurb promised to help the audience understand how to “public distinguish between relevant expertise and those who merely have strong opinions and loud voices”, in my opinion (and I’m not alone), Toby Young is one of those loud-voiced, strongly opinionated people whose output undermines public confidence in science.
As well as being the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Young is the founder and editor of the website “Lockdown Sceptics”, latterly rebadged as “Daily Sceptic”, which has been spreading misinformation about the pandemic since 2020, including articles from authors such Clare Craig, Mike Yeadon, and more.
The Daily Sceptic has been nothing but fulsome in its praise for Andrew Bridgen MP, the former-Tory-MP-turned-conspiracy-theorist, whose work sowing mistrust and dubious vaccine statistics in parliament has been dissected in The Skeptic previously. However, to the Daily Sceptic, Bridgen is treated as a brave and important whistleblower who should be celebrated, and defended, especially from the unfair ‘attacks’ of fact checkers or those who accuse him of antisemitism.
Daily Sceptic authors have uncritically reproduced a full transcript of his error-strewn parliamentary addresses on multiple occasions. In at least those latter instances, Toby Young shared the articles from his Daily Sceptic to his Twitter account so, even if he were to claim he did not fully endorse them, he ought at least to be aware of them.
A misleading approach to Covid statistics is also common at the Daily Sceptic, including an article that, even as recently as January 2024, continues to misunderstand or misrepresent the purpose of the Yellow Card scheme for reporting medical side effects. The article, jointly penned by Dr Carl Henegan and Dr Tom Jefferson, claims that the Yellow Card data shows there have been 2,546 deaths linked to the Covid vaccine – but, crucially, it misses the context that the data is not designed to claim causation, just to cast as broad a net as possible to help identify patterns.
The authors include the note:
The MHRA considers its previous estimates of underreporting (that only 10% of serious reactions are reported) should not be used as indicators of the reporting rate for COVID-19 vaccines, as it considers there is high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme. There is no evidence of this heightened awareness, and it is plausible, given the previous estimate, that the number of suspected adverse reactions could be 10-fold higher than the number reported.
This, again, is highly misleading – medical side effects to common medications are often under-reported, possibly even to the level specified here… but that is far more often true of very trivial side effects. Headaches, sore arms, and mild fatigue are all side effects of vaccination that plenty of people will experience, but few will ever report them. So most of those trivial side effects may be entirely missing from the Yellow Card data (although, less so in the case of the Covid vaccine, because of the elevated public conversation around the potential for side effects).
However, if people were regularly dropping dead as a direct result of their vaccination, it’s incredibly unlikely that their death would go unreported – especially at a time when medical professionals were actively looking for any indication of unforeseen dangers. It is how the rare blood clotting issues caused by the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were quickly discovered and the use of the vaccine limited to reduce the chance of issues arising.
That the article in the Daily Sceptic missed, misunderstood, or misrepresented the purpose of the Yellow Card Scheme suggests a serious oversight by the authors and editors.
Elsewhere, in the article “Are We Being Gaslit Over the Cause of the Princess of Wales’s Cancer?”, we are led to question whether it’s rather unusual that both Kate Middleton and her father in law have cancer at the same time, and therefore whether the cause might be… the Covid vaccine:
That the Daily Sceptic missed, misunderstood, or misrepresented the purpose of the Yellow Card Scheme suggests a serious oversight by the authors and editors.
“What is for certain is that – for whatever reason – King Charles and Princess Catherine are in a growing group of previously healthy people being diagnosed with cancer…
“If you want to look at some primary source material, search for “vaccine induced cancer” and “vaccine induced T cell suppression” – you’ll probably have to search for it on Rumble and other platforms like that.”
That post is written by Melissa Kite, who it is worth pointing out, is also a colleague of Young’s at the Spectator – where Young is listed as Associate Editor.
The Daily Climate Sceptic
Covid is not the only important issue that the Daily Sceptic spreads misinformation about – Young’s daily dose of scepticism includes a heavy dose of climate change denialism, including headlines like:
- Report Slams Governments and Media for Spinning Climate Alarmism From IPCC Reports Without Scientific Evidence
- Net Zero Promoters “Have No Idea What They Are Doing” Over Multi-Trillion Dollar Battery Costs, says New Report
- Climate Crisis Shock: No Change in Average U.K. Temperatures for More Than Two Decades
- Arctic Ice is Not “Rapidly Vanishing” – Study Finds Similar Trends Over At Least 200 Years
- CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist
- Shocking Failures of Climate and Covid Science Highlighted by Critical New Report
Each of those stories – and, in fact, a deluge of others – are based on reports, statements or experts provided by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the climate denialist charity which The Skeptic named as the winners of the 2022 Rusty Razor award for pseudoscience.
The Daily Sceptic’s reliance upon the GWPF (latterly rebranded to “Net Zero watch”) as its most frequent source for climate change contrarianism appears to be something of a sore spot for Young. Back in April, naturalist and climate activist Chris Packham appeared on a BBC news programme and pointed out the evidence that demonstrates the reality of climate change, saying (according to an account Young himself published in the Spectator):
‘It doesn’t come from Toby Young’s Daily Septic [sic], which is basically put together by a bunch of professionals with close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry… It comes from something called science.’
Young took great exception to this characterisation, complaining to the BBC and accusing Packham of a “smear” that was “false and defamatory”. As a result of complaints, including that by noted free speech advocate Toby Young, the BBC removed recordings of the programme in question.
Packham’s assertion was false: there is no evidence that the Daily Sceptic is a well-financed front of the fossil fuel industry… the reality appears to be that the Daily Sceptic are uncritical in their reproduction of GWPF material because they genuinely believe in it.
In fairness to Toby Young, Packham’s assertion was false: there is no evidence that the Daily Sceptic is a well-financed front of the fossil fuel industry, and its articles are not put together by professionals who have close ties to that industry.
However, it remains true that the Daily Sceptic have published scores, if not hundreds, of articles whose central arguments have the effect of undermining public confidence in the reality of climate change, based on reports issued by a climate denialist charity dogged by allegations of association with the fossil fuel industry.
It is possible to argue that Packham was being charitable to the Daily Sceptic in assuming that the publication would only so enthusiastically parrot the talking points of a climate denialist organisation if it was being paid to do so, whereas the reality appears to be that the Daily Sceptic is uncritical in its reproduction of GWPF material because it genuinely believes in it.
A ‘sceptic’ by any other name
I first came across the Daily Sceptic in Telegram groups related to the White Rose antivax movement, which continues to enthusiastically share and approve of the work of Young’s team. However, a search among those same groups for mentions of the Free Speech Union shows the sentiment is far less positive – as best as I can tell, these antivax, conspiracist spaces actively dislike the FSU. Yet it’s hard to argue that there is a substantial difference between the positions of the Free Speech Union and those of the Daily Sceptic; indeed, why would there be, when both organisations have clear overlaps in terms of writers, directors, and editors?
But, with different brands comes the ability to be different things to different audiences… which brings us back to those “restoring public confidence in science” conversations, in partnership with Sense About Science. Sense About Science and their supporters might recognise the problematic positions of the Daily Sceptic, but when it comes to the Free Speech Union, who could possibly be against free speech?
It is possible to argue that, despite the misinformed scientific positions endorsed by Young’s Daily Sceptic, the mission of the Free Speech Union is still one worth supporting, because they are a “non-partisan membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of people from all walks of life”. That it is not a case of left or right, nor a case of science or pseudoscience; their goal is to protect the free speech of all, regardless of viewpoint.
It certainly isn’t hard to prove the FSU’s commitment to the free speech of one side of the political or ideological spectrum: their site has a video testimonial from Conservative activist Darren Grimes explaining that the FSU helped when he was being investigated by the police for racist remarks historian David Starkey made on Grime’s show, and the FSU also features video interviews with historian and conspiracy theorist Neil Oliver, and ‘anti-woke’ writer Andrew Doyle, among many more. Toby Young even explained in the Spectator that the FSU believes “even Tommy Robinson has the right to protest”. Laudable stuff.
But what of the other side of the ideological spectrum? Where is the FSU’s non-partisan support for those who espouse views that aren’t ones shared by Young, Douglas Murray, Andrew Doyle et al? When an employment tribunal collapsed after members of the panel were found to have tweeted statements that were anti-Tory, the Free Speech Union… had no issue with the tribunal’s collapse. We can presumably surmise that free speech does not extend to using one’s personal time to make jokes about the Tory party. We may wonder how the non-partisan FSU would respond to someone being censured at work for tweets critical of the Labour or Green parties.
The FSU’s position on climate protesters has amounted to chastising them for acts of vandalism – concerns they apparently didn’t feel the need to express over protests from Tommy Robinson and his supporters.
Similarly, when plans were introduced to prevent workers for the Civil Service from wearing lanyards that showed their support for social movements, the FSU published two separate articles in support of the proposals, neither of which found much to criticise about a ban on expressing personal opinions in the workplace. Again, we may wonder how the FSU would have responded to a ban on wearing symbols of causes they happened to agree with.
The FSU’s positions are just as remarkable regarding the causes they decline to pass comment on. While Young is keen to highlight Tommy Robinson’s right to protest, he and the FSU have been oddly silent on whether Dr Sarah Benn has the right to peacefully protest against climate change without being suspended by the GMC, or whether Trudy Warner ought to have been threatened with jail for holding up a placard advising climate change protestors of their legal rights. The FSU’s position on climate protesters has amounted to chastising them for acts of vandalism – concerns they apparently didn’t feel the need to express over protests from Tommy Robinson and his supporters.
The freedom to be partisan
Just to be totally clear, I believe that the FSU has every right to only take an interest in cases they ideologically agree with and care about, and they’re also completely within their right to be silent about, or even actively condemn, free speech protests made by people or causes they disagree with. I believe they’re even allowed to do that while claiming to be non-partisan, though personally I’d prefer to see them be more honest with themselves about which causes are likely to move them to action.
I only raise these criticisms because, if you didn’t know much about the FSU or the organisations in their orbit, you might argue that, while you disagree with them about vaccine science or whether the climate is changing, you can respect the fact that they have a wholly and impartially committed view on free speech. My point is that, in my opinion, their defence of free speech is more conditional than they might recognise.
Personally, ideological hypocrisy is not the reason why I wouldn’t work with or endorse any project that involves Young or the FSU – for me, the red line is their associated contrarian positions on vaccines, Covid, and climate change. But for people who are willing to overlook those concerns in order to stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of free speech, that ideological hypocrisy ought to present an issue.
The risk here is that credible organisations that have worked hard to build a strong reputation for sound science, critical thinking, and open debate might end up lending some of their reputation and credibility to the FSU and, by extension, to organisations like the Daily Sceptic.
Those organisations have every right in the world to choose who they partner with and what events they run, but, by the same token, we have the right to point out where we think they’ve got something wrong and where we have concerns. Indeed, it is our freedom of speech to do so.
