By David Spencer

In this policy note we outline the origins of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs), the approach by police forces to recording them and their threefold impact: (1) distracting police officers from focusing on what should be the core mission of policing to fight crime, (2) curtailing the employment prospects of individual members of the public through inappropriate disclosures of NCHIs, and (3) having a broader chilling effect on freedom of expression in our society. The origins of NCHIs can be found in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, published in 1999, which recommended that the police formally log “racist incidents” that did not reach the threshold of being a criminal offence. Subsequently expanded to cover other types of incident, NCHIs were entrenched in policing practice through the College of Policing’s 2014 ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’. As a result of a successful legal challenge in 2021, R (on the application of Miller) v College of Policing, the previous Government exercised its statutory power to introduce a new Code of Practice for the recording of NCHIs in June 2023. Until this point NCHIs had no formal basis in legislation whatsoever. The Code of Practice, issued pursuant section 60 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, defines Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) as: “an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (‘the subject’) which is perceived by a person other than the subject to be motivated - wholly or partly - by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.” This paper demonstrates that the protections which Parliament and the previous Government attempted to introduce through this Code of Practice have been largely ineffective. A recent Inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate for Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) shows that police forces have been willing entirely to ignore – and in fact to act contrary to – the Code of Practice. Out of 120 case files examined by HMICFRS sixteen NCHIs and fourteen hate crimes had been incorrectly recorded by police forces – an error rate of 25%. Of the 120 cases that HMICFRS reviewed, police had incorrectly recorded seven incidents on school premises. That police forces are failing to get it right is no surprise – their track record in this domain has been poor. In 2021, Merseyside Police were rightly criticised for producing a false and misleading advertising campaign which contained the slogan “BEING OFFENSIVE IS AN OFFENCE” – revealing that the officers involved were entirely wrong in their understanding of the law. A senior officer in the force subsequently withdrew the campaign and attempted to shift the blame onto the “local policing team on the Wirral”. Police forces continue to be highly opaque in their approach to NCHIs – producing little clarity over their policies or data relating to the recording of NCHIs. What data does exist shows that there is very wide variation in rates of reporting between police forces. Essex Police, records NCHIs at a rate of 21.5 NCHIs per 100 officers per annum in 2023 – a rate three times that of the Met, four times that of Greater Manchester and ten times that of West Yorkshire. The number of NCHIs recorded per 100 officers per annum is 7.2 in the Metropolitan Police, 5.72 in Greater Manchester Police and 2.4 in West Yorkshire Police. This compares to an estimated national rate in the 12 months to June 2024 of 8.9 NCHIs recorded per 100 officers. The distraction of police officers from other, more important activities is of grave concern to great swathes of the public – particularly given NCHIs do not involve allegations of criminality. In many cases Police and Crime Commissioners have been insufficiently robust in ensuring that forces have been focused on the fight against crime. In doing so it appears that PCCs are demonstrating an undue regard for an expansive understanding of police chiefs’ ‘operational independence’ – something the public will not thank them for. (continued)

London: Policy Exchange, 2024. 38p.

Edited by Stefanie Ullmann and Marcus Tomalin

This volume looks at the forms and functions of counterspeech as well as what determines its effectiveness and success from multidisciplinary perspectives. Counterspeech is in line with international human rights and freedom of speech, and it can be a much more powerful tool against dangerous and toxic speech than blocking and censorship. In the face of online hate speech and disinformation, counterspeech is a tremendously important and timely topic. The book uniquely brings together expertise from a variety of disciplines. It explores linguistic, ethical and legal aspects of counterspeech, looks at the functions and effectiveness of counterspeech from anthropological, practical and sociological perspectives and addresses the question of how we can use modern technological advances to make counterspeech a more instantaneous and efficient option to respond to harmful language online. The greatest benefit of counterspeech lies in the ability to reach bystanders and prevent them from becoming perpetrators themselves. This volume is an excellent opportunity to spread the word about counterspeech, its potential, importance, and future endeavors. This anthology is a great resource for scholars and students of linguistics, philosophy of language, media and communication studies, digital humanities, natural language processing, international human rights law, anthropology and sociology, and interdisciplinary research methods. It is also a valuable source of information for practitioners and anyone who wants to speak up against harmful speech.

Oxford; New York: Routledge, 2023. 225p.

By Polona Car, Beatrix Immenkamp

Differences between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) over the regulation of online platforms have taken on a new dimension under the Trump administration. Senior members of the US administration have strongly criticised the EU for 'limiting free speech' and have called the EU's content moderation law 'incompatible with America's free speech tradition'. Much of the debate is informed by misconceptions and misunderstandings. The differences between the US and EU hate speech regimes are striking, largely for historical reasons. The First Amendment to the US Constitution provides almost absolute protection to freedom of expression. By contrast, European and EU law curtails the right to freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which applies to all EU Member States, states that freedom of expressions 'carries with it duties and responsibilities'. In a democratic society, restrictions may be imposed in the interest, among others, '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'. EU legislation criminalises hate speech that publicly incites to violence or hatred and targets a set of protected characteristics: race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Even though legislation in EU Member States varies widely, many have extended protection from hate speech to additional characteristics. In light of the exponential growth of the internet and the use of social media, the debate about hate speech has essentially become about regulating social media companies. The focus has been on the question of whether and to what extent service providers are responsible for removing hate speech published on social media platforms. The US has opted not to impose any obligation on social media companies to remove content created by third parties, merely granting them the right to restrict access to certain material deemed to be 'obscene' or 'otherwise objectionable'. By contrast, the EU has adopted regulation that obliges companies to remove offensive content created by third parties, including hate speech, once it is brought to their attention. Social media companies also self-regulate, by adopting community guidelines that allow users to flag hate speech and ask for its removal.

Brussels: EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service, 2025. 10p.

By Cem Abanazir

This powerful new book looks at how private institutions governing and organising sport restrict political expression. Uniquely, it makes a case for the freedom of expression for athletes, spectators and audiences built upon philosophical foundations. In the era of Colin Kaepernick and taking a knee, politics and protest in sport have never been more visible and immediate. Drawing on a wide range of international cases, including protest actions from athletes such as Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Naomi Osaka and Feyisa Lilesa, as well as the reactions from sport organisations including the IOC, FIFA, UEFA and the NFL, the book argues that the organisation of sport at the hands of associations and leagues and their transnational power to regulate, adjudicate and enforce matters according to their interests lead to the restriction of freedom of expression. Focusing on the individual, the book presents a framework for the defence of freedom of expression in sport on moral grounds and also explores the limits to freedom of expression, especially those arising from hate speech, that might better serve both the individual and sport as an institution. This book is fascinating reading for anybody with an interest in the ethics, philosophy or politics of sport, sport governance, the relationship between sport and wider society, or moral or political philosophy

London; New York, Routledge, 2023. 212p.

By Timothy Cubitt, Anthony Morgan and Isabella Voce

Recent protest activity in Australia has related to a range of political and social causes, including climate change, women’s rights, pandemic-related government policies, and a range of ideological movements. While peaceful protests were held in parts of the country, some resulted in arrests, fines and violence (ABC News 2021; Bavas & Nguyen 2021). Over time, fringe and conspiratorial rhetoric increased across social media (De Coninck 2021) and began featuring more prominently in anti-authority ‘freedom’ protests (Khalil & Roose 2023). While the public health measures have ceased, these freedom protests—and related social movements—have persisted. Conspiratorial and far-right actors have become increasingly prominent among anti-government or anti-authority protests

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 693. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2024. 16p.

By Amy Lai

In this book, Amy Lai examines the current free speech crisis in Western universities. She studies the origin, history, and importance of freedom of speech in the university setting, and addresses the relevance and pitfalls of political correctness and microaggressions on campuses, where laws on harassment, discrimination, and hate speech are already in place, along with other concepts that have gained currency in the free speech debate, including deplatforming, trigger warning, and safe space. Looking at numerous free speech disputes in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, the book argues for the equal application of the free speech principle to all expressions to facilitate respectful debates. All in all, it affirms that the right to free expression is a natural right essential to the pursuit of truth, democratic governance, and self-development, and this right is nowhere more important than in the university.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2023. 306p.