One of the most important amendments to the Constitution is the First Amendment. It protects people’s ability to speak freely and honestly without fear of punishment, even if what they’re saying is hateful. Unfortunately, not all Constitutions protect speech in this way.

For example, in the UK, police recently threatened to punish people if they post “offensive” things online. Those who do so could be fined and potentially thrown in jail. This type of censorship must stop.

According to reports, Cheshire Constabulary, a British police force, recently published a post on their Facebook page warning users that they could be punished for their messages. Specifically, it stated, “we would remind all social media users to think carefully about what they are saying before posting messages online. Although you may believe your message is acceptable, other people may take offense, and you could face a large fine or up to two years in prison if your message is deemed to have broken the law.”

Unsurprisingly, many people were outraged by the post. “Freedom of speech, is granted to all those who wish to harm our once great country, and yet those who wish to bring a great sense of justice & equilibrium back to Britain get shut down once more by Cheshire Police’s overt emphasis on extreme misguided tolerance/intolerance, shame on you Cheshire Police maybe put more time & effort into tracking some of these 3000+ so called people of interest,” read a comment written by Steve Barrett.

The outrage even spread across the Atlantic. In Canada, Jordan B. Peterson, a clinical psychologist and well-known supporter of free-speech, commented, “are you out of your mind? You’re doing this in England? You should be tried for treason.” Peterson believes free speech is fundamental to democratic societies, and because of this, he’s convinced those actively trying to silence others need to be punished because they are working against the interests of their country.

In response to the massive backlash, the police force’s Facebook page released a statement about the previous post. “We can see that this has prompted a lot of discussion and we want to clarify our guidance,” they stated, noting, “whilst we are aware social media is a good platform for discussing issues, there can sometimes come a point that it is no longer a conversation and instead comments can be classed as a form of hate crime.”

Based on their statement, someone can be charged with a crime if they use “threatening words or behavior, on publications such as social media, which are intended or likely to encourage hatred towards other people.” This essentially means that in the UK, making controversial statements could potentially result in jail time. A comment condemning radical Islamic terrorism, for instance, could be taken by some to “likely encourage hatred” towards Muslims, and as a result, the person making the comment could be thrown in jail.

Policies like this ultimately result in a “chilling effect.” If people are worried that their speech may be punished, they may not say things that are perfectly legal for fear that it may not be. This creates a type of self-censorship that is antithetical to the values of Western society. For this reason, laws that “chill” speech need to be repealed immediately.

Some argue that it’s okay to “chill” some speech if the intent is to stop “hate speech,” a concept not recognized by the United States government. They believe that if a statement is offensive enough, the person making it should be punished. But clearly, this is completely absurd, which is why the U.S. doesn’t prohibit it. People are offended by different things. What offends one person may not offend another. Given the subjectivity of what counts as “hate speech,” laws against it can easily be abused.

People who want to silence or punish those they disagree with argue that what they’re opponents are saying is likely to encourage hatred towards other people. This is because by saying “likely,” intent is not necessary for guilt, meaning that someone could literally be punished for saying something even if they didn’t intend to encourage hatred towards other people. If this isn’t authoritarianism at it’s finest, I don’t know what is.

Despite the explicit wording, the police force insists the outrage is based on a misunderstanding. “As a Constabulary, we would never tell people what they can or can’t say, or what they can or can’t think. We recognize the importance of free speech and actively encourage engagement and discussion on a range of issues through our social media channels.” They claim that they were merely informing people about the law.

Ironically, this alleged “misunderstanding” serves as a perfect example of why “hate speech” laws should be opposed. It’s simply too easy for people to misunderstand what someone is saying, feel offended, and subsequently punish them for something they didn’t mean. But even people who are saying clearly hateful things still shouldn’t be punished. Doing so goes against the very fundamentals of a democratic society.