Stop censorship, the Westminster Declaration

October 18, 2023


A group of 138 journalist, authors, academics and artist warn of the damage of increasing censorship and urge governments to dismantle the Censorship Industrial Complex. They call their warning the Westminster Declaration.

Westminster Declaration:

We write as journalists, artists, authors, activists, technologists, and academics to warn of increasing international censorship that threatens to erode centuries-old democratic norms.

Coming from the left, right, and centre, we are united by our commitment to universal human rights and freedom of speech, and we are all deeply concerned about attempts to label protected speech as ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms.

This abuse of these terms has resulted in the censorship of ordinary people, journalists, and dissidents in countries all over the world.

Such interference with the right to free speech suppresses valid discussion about matters of urgent public interest, and undermines the foundational principles of representative democracy.

Across the globe, government actors, social media companies, universities, and NGOs are increasingly working to monitor citizens and rob them of their voices. These large-scale coordinated efforts are sometimes referred to as the ‘Censorship-Industrial Complex.’

This complex often operates through direct government policies. Authorities in India and Turkey have seized the power to remove political content from social media. The legislature in Germany and the Supreme Court in Brazil are criminalizing political speech. In other countries, measures such as Ireland’s ‘Hate Speech’ Bill, Scotland’s Hate Crime Act, the UK’s Online Safety Bill, and Australia’s ‘Misinformation’ Bill threaten to severely restrict expression and create a chilling effect.

But the Censorship Industrial Complex operates through more subtle methods. These include visibility filtering, labeling, and manipulation of search engine results. Through deplatforming and flagging, social media censors have already silenced lawful opinions on topics of national and geopolitical importance. They have done so with the full support of ‘disinformation experts’ and ‘fact-checkers’ in the mainstream media, who have abandoned the journalistic values of debate and intellectual inquiry.

As the Twitter Files revealed, tech companies often perform censorial ‘content moderation’ in coordination with government agencies and civil society. Soon, the European Union’s Digital Services Act will formalize this relationship by giving platform data to ‘vetted researchers’ from NGOs and academia, relegating our speech rights to the discretion of these unelected and unaccountable entities.

Some politicians and NGOs are even aiming to target end-to-end encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. If end-to-end encryption is broken, we will have no remaining avenues for authentic private conversations in the digital sphere.

Although foreign disinformation between states is a real issue, agencies designed to combat these threats, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States, are increasingly being turned inward against the public. Under the guise of preventing harm and protecting truth, speech is being treated as a permitted activity rather than an inalienable right.

We recognize that words can sometimes cause offense, but we reject the idea that hurt feelings and discomfort, even if acute, are grounds for censorship. Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny.

Speech protections are not just for views we agree with; we must strenuously protect speech for the views that we most strongly oppose. Only in the public square can these views be heard and properly challenged.

What’s more, time and time again, unpopular opinions and ideas have eventually become conventional wisdom. By labeling certain political or scientific positions as ‘misinformation’ or ‘malinformation,’ our societies risk getting stuck in false paradigms that will rob humanity of hard-earned knowledge and obliterate the possibility of gaining new knowledge. Free speech is our best defense against disinformation.

The attack on speech is not just about distorted rules and regulations – it is a crisis of humanity itself. Every equality and justice campaign in history has relied on an open forum to voice dissent. In countless examples, including the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, social progress has depended on freedom of expression.

We do not want our children to grow up in a world where they live in fear of speaking their minds. We want them to grow up in a world where their ideas can be expressed, explored and debated openly – a world that the founders of our democracies envisioned when they enshrined free speech into our laws and constitutions.

The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law. One need not agree with the U.S. on every issue to acknowledge that this is a vital ‘first liberty’ from which all other liberties follow. It is only through free speech that we can denounce violations of our rights and fight for new freedoms.

There also exists a clear and robust international protection for free speech. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was drafted in 1948 in response to atrocities committed during World War II. Article 19 of the UDHR states, ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ While there may be a need for governments to regulate some aspects of social media, such as age limits, these regulations should never infringe on the human right to freedom of expression.

As is made clear by Article 19, the corollary of the right to free speech is the right to information. In a democracy, no one has a monopoly over what is considered to be true. Rather, truth must be discovered through dialogue and debate – and we cannot discover truth without allowing for the possibility of error.

Censorship in the name of ‘preserving democracy’ inverts what should be a bottom-up system of representation into a top-down system of ideological control. This censorship is ultimately counter-productive: it sows mistrust, encourages radicalization, and de-legitimizes the democratic process.

In the course of human history, attacks on free speech have been a precursor to attacks on all other liberties. Regimes that eroded free speech have always inevitably weakened and damaged other core democratic structures. In the same fashion, the elites that push for censorship today are also undermining democracy. What has changed though, is the broad scale and technological tools through which censorship can be enacted.

We believe that free speech is essential for ensuring our safety from state abuses of power – abuses that have historically posed a far greater threat than the words of lone individuals or even organized groups. For the sake of human welfare and flourishing, we make the following three calls to action.

We call on governments and international organizations to fulfill their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.

We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.

And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people’s democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many.

Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Censorship robs us of the richness of life itself. Free speech is the foundation for creating a life of meaning and a thriving humanity – through art, poetry, drama, story, philosophy, song, and more.

This declaration was the result of an initial meeting of free speech champions from around the world who met in Westminster, London, at the end of June 2023. As signatories of this statement, we have fundamental political and ideological disagreements. However, it is only by coming together that we will defeat the encroaching forces of censorship so that we can maintain our ability to openly debate and challenge one another. It is in the spirit of difference and debate that we sign the Westminster Declaration.


Matt Taibbi, Journalist, US
Michael Shellenberger, Public, US
Jonathan Haidt, Social Psychologist, NYU, US
John McWhorter, Linguist, Columbia, Author, US
Steven Pinker, Psychologist, Harvard, US
Julian Assange, Editor, Founder of Wikileaks, Australia
Tim Robbins, Actor, Filmmaker, US
Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, NYLS, US
Glenn Loury, Economist, USA
Richard Dawkins, Biologist, UK
John Cleese, Comedian, Acrobat, UK
Slavoj Žižek, Philosopher, Author, Slovenia
Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, US
Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, US
Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, US
Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, USA
Stella Assange, Campaigner, UK
Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, US
Claire Fox, Founder of the Academy of Ideas, UK
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, Psychologist, Author, Canada
Bari Weiss, Journalist, USA
Peter Hitchens, Author, Journalist, UK
Niall Ferguson, Historian, Stanford, UK
Matt Ridley, Journalist, Author, UK
Melissa Chen, Journalist, Spectator, Singapore/US
Yanis Varoufakis, Economist, Greece
Peter Boghossian, Philosopher, Founding Faculty Fellow, University of Austin, US
Michael Shermer, Science Writer, US
Alan Sokal, Professor of Mathematics, UCL, UK
Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology, Oxford, UK
Jay Bhattacharya, Professor, Stanford, US
Martin Kulldorf, Professor of Medicine (on leave), Harvard, US
Aaron Kheiriaty, Psychiatrist, Author, USA
Chris Hedges, Journalist, Author, USA
Lee Fang, Independent Journalist, US
Alex Gutentag, Journalist, US
Iain McGilchrist, Psychiatrist, Philosopher, UK
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Human Rights Activist, Author, Netherlands
Konstantin Kisin, Author, UK
Leighton Woodhouse, Public, US
Andrew Lowenthal, liber-net, Australia
Aaron Mate, Journalist, USA
Izabella Kaminska, Journalist, The Blind Spot, UK
Nina Power, Writer, UK
Kmele Foster, Journalist, Media Entrepreneur, USA
Toby Young, Journalist, Free Speech Union, UK
Winston Marshall, Journalist, The Spectator, UK
Jacob Siegel, Tablet, US/Israel
Ulrike Guerot, Founder of European Democracy Lab, Germany
Heather E. Heying, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Bret Weinstein, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Martina Pastorelli, Independent Journalist, Italy
Leandro Narloch, Independent Journalist, Brazil
Ana Henkel, Independent Journalist, Brazil
Mia Ashton, Journalist, Canada
Micha Narberhaus, The Protopia Lab, Spain/Germany
Alex Sheridan, Free Speech Ireland
Ben Scallan, Gript Media, Ireland
Thomas Fazi, Independent Journalist, Italy
Jean F. Queralt, Technologist, Founder @ The IO Foundation, Malaysia/Spain
Phil Shaw, Campaigner, Operation People, New Zealand
Jeremy Hildreth, Independent, UK
Craig Snider, Independent, US
Eve Kay, TV Producer, UK
Helen Joyce, Journalist, UK
Dietrich Brüggemann, Filmmaker, Germany
Adam B. Coleman, Founder of Wrong Speak Publishing, US
Helen Pluckrose, Author, US
Michael Nayna, Filmmaker, Australia
Paul Rossi, Educator, Vertex Partnership Academics, US
Juan Carlos Girauta, Politician, Spain
Andrew Neish, KC, UK
Steven Berkoff, Actor, Playright, UK
Patrick Hughes, Artist, UK
Adam Creighton, Journalist, Australia
Julia Hartley-Brewer, Journalist, UK
Robert Cibis, Filmmaker, Germany
Piers Robinson, Organization for Propaganda Studies, UK
Dirk Pohlmann, Journalist, Germany
Mathias Bröckers, Author, Journalist, Germany
Kira Phillips, Documentary Filmmaker, UK
Diane Atkinson, Historian, Biographer, UK
Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, Birkbeck, University of London, Canada
Laura Dodsworth, Journalist and Author, UK
Nellie Bowles, Journalist, USA
Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University,  UK
Julius Grower, Fellow, St. Hugh’s College, UK
Nick Dixon, Comedian, UK
Dominic Frisby, Comedian, UK
James Orr, Associate Professor, University of Cambridge, UK
Andrew Roberts, Historian, UK
Robert Tombs, Historian, UK
Ben Schwarz, Journalist, USA
Xavier Azalbert, Investigative Scientific Journalist, France
Doug Stokes, International Relations Professor, University of Exeter, UK
James Allan, Professor of Law, University of Queensland, UK
David McGrogan, Professor of Law, Northumbria University, UK
Jacob Mchangama, Author, Denmark
Nigel Biggar, Chairman, Free Speech Union, UK
David Goodhart, Journalist, Author, UK
Catherine Austin Fitts, The Solari Report, Netherlands
Matt Goodwin, Politics Professor, University of Kent, UK
Catherine Liu, Cultural Theorist, Author, USA
Stefan Millius, Journalist, Switzerland
Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law, Columbia, USA
Rueben Kirkham, Co-Director, Free Speech Union of Australia, Australia
Jeffrey Tucker, Author, USA
Sarah Gon, Director, Free Speech Union, South Africa
Dara Macdonald, Co-Director, Free Speech Union, Australia
Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive, Free Speech Union, New Zealand
David Zweig, Journalist, Author, USA
Juan Soto Ivars, Author, Spain
Colin Wright, Evolutionary Biologist, USA
Gad Saad, Professor, Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist, Author, Canada
Robert W. Malone, MD, MS, USA
Jill Glasspool-Malone, PhD., USA
Jordi Pigem, Philosopher, Author, Spain
Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor in Political Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Australia
Michele Santoro, Journalist, TV host, Presenter, Italy
Dr. James Smith, Podcaster, Literature Scholar, RHUL, UK
Francis Foster, Comedian, UK
Coleman Hughes, Writer, Podcaster, USA
Marco Bassani, Political Theorist, Historian, Milan University, Italy
Isabella Loiodice, Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Bari, Italy
Luca Ricolfi, Professor, Sociologist, Turin University, Italy
Marcello Foa, Journalist, Former President of Rai, Italy
Andrea Zhok, Philosopher, University of Milan, Italy
Paolo Cesaretti, Professor of Byzantine Civilization, University of Bergamo, Italy
Alberto Contri, Mass Media Expert, Italy
Carlo Lottieri, Philosopher, University of Verona, Italy
Alessandro Di Battista, Political activist, Writer, Italy
Paola Mastrocola, Writer, Italy
Carlo Freccero, Television Author, Media Expert, Italy
Giorgio Bianchi, Independent Journalist, Italy
Nello Preterossi, Professor, University of Salerno, Scientific Director of the Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies, Italy
Efrat Fenigson, Journalist, Podcaster, Israel
Eli Vieira, Journalist, Genetic Biologist, Brazil
Stephen Moore, Author and Analyst, Canada

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In the good old days it was called communist propaganda and as long as intentional misinformation is accepted, the first amendment is being undermined.

Four questions:

1) FBI Director Wray recently stated “We’ve seen AI (artificial intelligence) used to essentially amplify the distribution or dissemination of terrorist propaganda.” Is artificially generated propaganda protected Free Speech?

2) Are there not state-sponsored anonymous Internet political commentators/actors “speaking” on various websites? I am thinking of entities like Russian web brigades, Rustapar, linked to the Government of Russia. Is their Free Speech protected?

3) Is speech designed to incite violence protected Free Speech?

4) Does not the monitor of this privately owned website police this site’s speech? Is that infringing on Free Speech?

Although I may agree with your thoughts, L.B… Who can we trust to decide which “Social Boundaries” are OK? I say… No restrictions.

Who can we trust? Me of course! Haha, just kidding. No, you of course see exactly the problem, no single person should be the arbiter. We have to rely on nebulous “common sense” and always err on the side of permissiveness.

Legally almost total openness, although no actionable threats, slander, stuff like that – the first amendment is pretty well established and the USA does a great job overall.

Socially it’s more tricky, I can pick out obvious things: no neo-Nazis, no Stalinists, no KKK, no Dallas Cowboy fans (just kidding). But it’s tricky, I think people who call for the death of Jews should be socially shamed and they’ll certainly be restricted from my social circles – so based on that we have to have more than 0 restrictions. I can’t think of any hard or fast rule, so the solution is probably to just be permissive and slow to judge.

While I’m hesitant to take seriously any manifesto signed by the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Ed Snowden, it does seem to have the approval of folks like Jonathan Haidt who I have respect for.

I’m obviously pro-free speech, I am also concerned about how it’s increasing common for the right and left to only believe in the legitimacy of speech they agree with. However while it’s someone’s right, we should not encourage or have to treat equally every written or spoken word. I don’t think we should have a debate on the pros and cons of chattel slavery, or endlessly “just ask questions” about the Holocaust. I don’t want the government involved; it’s not illegal to be a villain, but uninviting pedophiles from a campus speech or kicking the anonymous organizers of harassment/doxxing from Twitter doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me. Some social boundaries are ok.