It is ironic, then, that vice president J.D. Vance dashed to the Munich Security Conference last week to scold Europeans for their supposed failings on free speech and democracy.
Speaking to European leaders, Vance fretted: “The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor.” Rather, it is “the threat from within”. This rehashing of tropes about “the enemy within” forms part of a Trumpist vocabulary borrowed from the most sinister 20th century autocracies.
One of Vance’s key claims for the decline of free speech in Europe left many UK observers dumbfounded. He rebuked the Scottish government for sending out letters in October 2024 cautioning citizens that, in his words, “even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law”.
Vance was referring to Scotland’s Safe Access Zones Act, which prohibits protesters from gathering within 200 metres of clinics that perform abortions. Yet his accusation teaches volumes about Trumpism. To call it distorted would be diplomatic: it is a bold-faced lie. The Scottish government has confirmed that letters sent to residents near safe access zones did not instruct people to stop praying in the privacy of their homes.
However, the letters did advise against conduct such as displaying anti-abortion posters or banners, or protesting on their property in ways that might be seen or heard within proximity of the clinics, or might encourage such activity in those areas.
The Scottish law echoes similar laws in other democracies, including severalUS states. Yes, the right to protest is essential to democratic societies, but these societies have always accepted that protesters must not harass or threaten citizens going about their everyday business, let alone when seeking essential services such as medical appointments.
Admittedly, “buffer zones” around abortion clinics cannot and need not extend so far as to impede protesters’ freedoms of expression, so a debate about the precise reach of the Scottish law can and should take place. However, as observed in England and Wales, zones have not generally been drawn with excessively broad perimeters.
Clearly, Vance’s eyes were more fixed on his own future presidential bid, playing more to religious fundamentalists back home than to anyone who might seriously care about free expression. His 18-minute speech invoked God three times, and “prayer” nine times, while saying nothing about the main issue for which delegates had gathered: Russia’s unprovoked onslaught on Ukraine.
Curiously, Vance whispered not a word of criticism about UK government crackdowns on the kinds of protests that, in the US, Trump most fears, such as protests against specific government policies and practices.
I should not have to point out that anti-abortionists in Scotland remain entirely free to proclaim their opinions, in public and in print, alongside countless other types of political expression. Such expression has long been recognised as protected under UK law, and enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
The only impact of Scotland’s new law is to prevent residents living within 200 metres of such clinics from displaying placards or holding events that would target women visiting such facilities. Admittedly, someone “only standing and praying” nearby a clinic may present a borderline case – but well within bounds that can be assessed through our democratic processes, the very processes that Trump loyalists increasingly disdain.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of the Scottish law, but any suggestion that it seriously abridges free speech – when compared to the kinds of incursions Trump himself wages – would be farcical.
Admittedly, while Scotland rightly protects its medical facilities, some people will ask whether a law can legitimately reach so far as to regulate the opinions that people wish to display in their windows and gardens. In recent years, many UK homes have flown Ukrainian or Palestinian flags from their homes, which some neighbours may find inappropriate. Yet British law protects their rights to do so.
Clearly then, we can have meaningful debates about how far free expression in the home extends, but nothing in what Trump officials have said or done on their home turf suggests that this is their real concern.
Free speech in retreat?
As it happens, Vance was not totally wrong when he mused: “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” For years, Hungarians have faced relentless attacks on free speech under Viktor Orbán – the autocrat whom Trump followers, including Vance himself, have so often praised.
On several occasions in The Conversation and elsewhere, I have advocated free speech and I have every intention to continue doing so. I am also willing to concede that, despite Trump’s compulsive attacks on free speech, his supporters have raised some valid concerns about the stifling of opinion on the left.
Abortion exemplifies the type of issue that sparks widespread ethical controversies. Any democracy must ensure that speakers on all sides have safe means of expressing their views in the public arena. Everyone in today’s democracies could use a few lessons in free speech – and the Trump team tops the list.
Eric Heinze, Professor of Law, Queen Mary University of London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.