High Court London warns of Orwellian Thought Police as it upholds freedom of speech

The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society. Warning the Claimant that in unspecified circumstances he might find himself being prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of expression on Twitter had the capacity to impede and deter him from expressing himself on transgender issues. In other words, the police’s actions, taken as a whole, had a chilling effect on his right to freedom of expression. That is an interference for the purposes of Article 10(1). Overall, given the importance of not restricting legitimate political debate, I conclude that Mrs B’s upset did not justify the police’s actions towards Mr Miller including turning up at his workplace and then warning him about criminal prosecution, thereby interfering with his Article 10(1) rights 

I hesitate to be overly critical of Mrs B, given she has not given evidence, but I consider it fair to say that her reaction to Mr Miller’s tweets was, at times, at the outer margins of rationality. For example, her suggestion that Mr Miller would have been anti Semitic eighty years ago had no proper basis and represents an extreme mindset on her behalf. Equally, her statement that if Mr Miller wins this case, transgender people will have to ‘kiss their rights goodbye’ was simply wrong. The Equality Act 2010 will remain in force. The evidence of Professor Stock shows that Mr Miller is far from alone in a debate which is complex and multi-faceted. Mrs B profoundly disagrees with his views, but such is the nature of free speech in a democracy. Professor Stock’s evidence demonstrates how quickly some involved in the transgender debate are prepared to accuse others with whom they disagree of showing hatred, or as being transphobic when they are not, but simply hold a different view. Mrs B’s evidence would tend to confirm Professor Stock’s evidence 
 
- Justice Knowles