The 42-year-old – imprisoned last October for contempt of court over violating a speech-restricting injunction – was released early when the High Court reduced his 18-month sentence.¹ Robinson’s supporters insist he was jailed for political reasons – punished not for any ordinary crime but for speaking truths that embarrassed the powerful. His dramatic release, and the defiant 20-minute speech he delivered immediately afterward, have become a flashpoint in an international battle over free speech and lawfare (the weaponization of law to silence dissent). This case raises urgent questions about civil liberties in the UK and beyond, at a moment when new legislation like Britain’s Online Safety Bill threatens to tighten control over online expression.
A Free Speech Martyr in Britain?
Robinson emerged from HMP Woodhill prison with a bushy beard and unbowed resolve, greeted by a small crowd of supporters. In his post-release address, he framed his imprisonment as the culmination of a 16-year campaign by the British state to muzzle him. "Unfortunately, in a country that doesn't believe in free speech, being a citizen journalist [means] this place is an occupational hazard," he said.² Ever since he began speaking out in 2009 – notably about Islamic rape gangs – he claims to have faced relentless legal attacks: "I have never been convicted by a jury. Every one of my convictions [has] been handed down to me by judges."
Robinson's latest incarceration stemmed from a breach of a court injunction that barred him from repeating certain allegations related to a defamation case. But to him and his supporters, the real reason for the gag order was to block the release of his documentary, The Rape of Britain. "I knew exactly what I was doing when I released that film. I knew I'd end up in there," he stated defiantly.³ He claims that UK authorities used every method at their disposal to torment him in custody, including restricting his visits, phone calls, and food.
What ultimately saved him, Robinson believes, was Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter (now X). With the film posted on X and Rumble, it reached 167 million views – making suppression impossible. "If Elon Musk did not purchase X... you’d have been lied to about this entire case," Robinson asserted.⁴ Without those platforms, he would have been painted again as a liar with no counter-narrative. In his words: "That gagging order, these attempts at censorship... hasn’t worked. You’ve attempted to lock up the truth, and that truth has been echoed around the entire globe."
Lawfare and the Silencing of Dissent
Robinson's experience mirrors what many call "lawfare" – the strategic use of legal systems to punish political enemies. In his speech, he connected his ordeal to global figures who faced similar tactics: Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Katie Hopkins.⁵ The pattern, he warned, is clear: anyone who challenges establishment narratives about immigration, national sovereignty, or even vaccine mandates is subject to legal harassment and personal ruin.
“Lawfare has been waged against anyone who has challenged the globalist narratives, challenged open borders, challenged mass immigration, even challenged vaccines.”
This weaponization of law is particularly concerning in the UK, where there is no constitutional free speech protection akin to the U.S. First Amendment. Laws around hate speech, contempt of court, and public order can all be flexibly applied to suppress controversial voices.
Hope Not Hate, CCDH, and the NGO Censorship Web
Robinson has frequently been targeted by Hope Not Hate (HNH), a UK-based nonprofit claiming to combat extremism. But according to journalist Charlotte Gill, HNH receives substantial funding from the UK government and major left-wing philanthropies.⁶ Its sister organization, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), based in both London and Washington D.C., gained global attention for its "Disinformation Dozen" report, which sought to deplatform prominent vaccine-critical voices including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Sayer Ji, and Dr. Mercola.⁷
Both groups are part of what some now call a censorship-industrial complex. Sayer Ji’s investigation found that CCDH is funded through a network of 17 anonymous dark-money donors using UK and U.S. donor-advised funds to obscure their identities.⁸ Another exposé by GreenMedInfo revealed that CCDH received funding from the same Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Esmee Fairbairn Foundation that bankroll Hope Not Hate.⁹
This international web of censorship enforcement – stretching from London to Silicon Valley – functions in tandem with state institutions. Documents obtained by U.S. lawsuits revealed CCDH coordinated with the UK Foreign Office, the Biden administration, and other Five Eyes intelligence agencies to flag and remove content on social media.¹⁰ Such activity reveals a chilling trend: transnational collusion to manage narratives, silence dissenters, and erode the public square.
The Global Stakes: UK to US and Beyond
Robinson’s case is not isolated. From Julian Assange and General Michael Flynn to RFK Jr. and the truckers of Canada, dissenters are increasingly met not with debate but with coordinated reputational and legal destruction.
The passage of the Online Safety Bill in the UK adds urgency to this trend. By requiring platforms to proactively moderate "harmful content," it effectively hands government agencies and their NGO partners sweeping powers to control discourse.¹¹ Even the U.S. State Department has warned that the Bill could infringe on fundamental liberties.¹²
“There is a war being waged on Britain, and it’s being waged by our leaders. And it’s a war on free speech. Our weapon is free speech.”
Conclusion: A Call to Defend Liberty
Whether one agrees with Tommy Robinson's message or not, his imprisonment over a documentary is an alarming precedent. As he noted, this was never just about him: "Every part of this is about stopping you. It's about censoring you. They don't want you to see the truth."¹³
“This isn’t about silencing me. Every part of this is about stopping you.”
We must ask: who decides what constitutes "disinformation" or "hate"? Why are taxpayer-funded NGOs enforcing ideological conformity? Why are whistleblowers and journalists facing terrorism charges for doing their jobs?
The time has come to stand for liberty, transparency, and the inalienable right to speak the truth.
¹ "Tommy Robinson released from prison after contempt of court sentence reduced," BBC News, May 27, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q0147e4yxo.
² Tommy Robinson, post-release speech transcript, 2025. See full Otter.ai transcript.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Charlotte Gill, "Who Funds You? Hope Not Hate: The Case for Greater Transparency," CharlotteCGill.co.uk, https://www.charlottecgill.co.uk/p/who-funds-you-hope-not-hate-case.
⁷ "17 Dark Money Funders Behind CCDH's 'Kill Elon’s Twitter' Directive," GreenMedInfo, https://greenmedinfo.com/content/17-dark-money-funders-behind-ccdhs-kill-elon-s-twitter-directive1.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ UK Parliament, Online Safety Bill (2023).
¹² Dan Sabbagh, "US voices concerns over UK’s Online Safety Bill and freedom of expression," The Guardian, April 2024.
¹³ Tommy Robinson, post-release speech transcript, 2025.
Share this post