The Infowars piece by Preston Byrne (April 1, 2026) lays out a bold Model Bill for a "Free Speech Act 2026" in Britain. It aims to create something functionally equivalent to the US First Amendment through ordinary legislation — without needing a full constitutional rewrite. Byrne, who has defended clients like 4chan against UK Ofcom enforcement and similar actions from Australian eSafety, argues that the UK has no meaningful free speech protection "in any sense that an American would recognize." Decades of laws criminalising "offence, insult, alarm, or distress" have led to tens of thousands of arrests yearly for opinions, memes, satire, or complaints about schools or policy.
Core Ideas in the Proposed UK Model Bill
The bill proposes a comprehensive overhaul in eight parts and six schedules:
Broad right to expression: Any person in the UK could hold and express opinions, including those that are "offensive, grossly offensive, insulting, abusive, shocking," etc. Explicitly, "there is no right in law not to be offended."
Narrow unprotected categories: Only speech meeting the strict US Brandenburg test for incitement (directed at producing imminent lawless action, likely to do so) would lose protection. General advocacy of illegal acts stays protected. Traditional crimes like threats, fraud, defamation, or specific national security offences remain.
Limits on government: Bans state censorship (direct or indirect, including via funding or licensing), "non-crime hate incident" monitoring (with record destruction required), outsourcing censorship to third parties, and compelled speech (e.g., forcing affirmation of beliefs for jobs, education, or services).
Protections in daily life: Lawful expression becomes a protected characteristic under equality/employment law. Employers and service providers can't discriminate based on off-duty speech. Essential services (banks, telecoms, domains) can't deplatform lawful speech.
Internet rules: Full repeal of the Online Safety Act, replaced with a US Section 230-style immunity (platforms/users not treated as publishers of others' content). Platforms could still moderate but face limits; they must handle CSAM quickly but not police "harmful" opinions.
Enforcement: Civil remedies against violators, anti-SLAPP protections, and annulment of old convictions for now-lawful conduct. It repeals chunks of the Public Order Act, Malicious Communications Act, Communications Act s.127, parts of terrorism laws, and more.
Byrne frames this as going on the "attack" rather than perpetual defence: force a binary choice — do you want First Amendment-level speech, or the status quo of self-censorship and selective prosecutions? He notes the UK's liberal history (common law roots influenced the US Bill of Rights) but argues recent laws have turned it into "Censorship Island."
Similar ideas have surfaced in UK debates (e.g., past Bill of Rights proposals emphasizing free speech weight, or Higher Education freedom measures), but this Model Bill is more radical in repealing broad "hate" and "grossly offensive" offences.
Australia: Implied Protections, Not a Strong Shield
Australia lacks any explicit constitutional right to free speech, unlike the US First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). The High Court has recognized an implied freedom of political communication derived from the Constitution's provisions for representative government (e.g., cases like Australian Capital Television and Lange). This protects some political discussion but is narrower —it can be limited if the law is "reasonably appropriate and adapted" to a legitimate purpose compatible with democratic government. It doesn't cover non-political speech robustly, and "offensive" or "hate" speech can still be restricted.
Recent developments highlight the gaps:
Ongoing reliance on statutes like racial vilification laws, with new federal hate speech expansions in 2025–2026 (e.g., incitement to racial hatred, aggravated offences, responses to events like Bondi). Critics from civil liberties groups, some Coalition figures, and free speech advocates argue these risk chilling legitimate debate, religious expression, or criticism of policy/migration.
eSafety Commissioner powers for content takedowns, similar to UK/AU actions against overseas platforms.
Proposals like the Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025 bill, which sought to insert a stronger guarantee, but these haven't passed.
A constitutional amendment would be the cleanest path to entrench robust protections, requiring a referendum under s.128 of the Australian Constitution (double majority: national popular vote + majority in a majority of states). It could mirror the US model — broad prohibition on laws abridging speech, with narrow exceptions carved out by courts (incitement, true threats, etc.). However, referendums are hard (most fail), and political consensus is rare. A statutory "Free Speech Act" (like Byrne's UK model) could be passed by Parliament more easily but remains vulnerable to future repeal or override, unlike a constitutional change.
Why a "Teeth" Version Matters for Both Countries
Both the UK and Australia operate under parliamentary sovereignty (or near it), where rights are often balanced against "harm," "hate," "safety," or "community standards." This leads to:
Vague offences that prosecutors or regulators can stretch (e.g., "grossly offensive" messages, online "harm").
Chilling effects: self-censorship, deplatforming, job losses, or arrests for edgy jokes, gender-critical views, or political dissent.
Extraterritorial reach: UK Ofcom and Australian eSafety targeting US-based sites.
The US approach prioritises speech as a near-absolute (with narrow, content-neutral limits upheld by courts) because more speech counters bad ideas, and government is the greater threat. Critics say this allows "hate" or misinformation; supporters say balancing tests erode liberty over time, as seen in UK/AU trends toward more regulation.
A strong Free Speech Act with teeth (repeals + positive rights + remedies + platform immunities) for Britain could reset the baseline legislatively. For Australia, your point on a constitutional amendment makes sense for durability — embedding it beyond easy parliamentary change, while still allowing democratic limits on direct incitement or fraud. Either way, the key is rejecting "no right not to be offended" and stopping the expansion of state or outsourced speech policing.
These are live debates: the UK Model Bill is positioned as a template for discussion, while Australia sees pushback on recent hate expansions and calls for clearer protections. Strong free speech correlates with open societies that can self-correct through debate rather than top-down control.