I believe passionately in free speech, but Donald Trump protests crossed a line

You don’t have to strip away basic freedoms to admit that the way people sometimes exercise them can be misguided.

Let me be clear: I have no issue with strong or even blunt language when it’s used thoughtfully. A single sharp phrase can carry the weight of a whole argument. I also believe passionately in free speech. I would always prefer open expression that pushes boundaries rather than a culture of excessive caution.

But this week, during the anti-Trump protests, I found myself uncomfortable and even a little embarrassed. Many of the homemade placards went beyond sharp criticism into territory that was too graphic to show on television. On Good Morning Britain, footage had to be edited repeatedly to remove explicit and indecent slogans. That raised a real question: if a message is too extreme for public broadcast, is it really effective?

Beyond the crude language, much of the rhetoric felt deeply personal. One protest sign outside Windsor Castle read, “Hope you choke to death on your dinner.” Having witnessed a person choke in real life, I can say it’s a harrowing experience far from a clever political jab.

There also seemed little attempt to separate Donald Trump the individual from the office he held. Yes, his behavior often sparked controversy marked by dishonesty, brashness, and misogyny. But history reminds us that many U.S. presidents carried heavy personal flaws. JFK’s affairs, Clinton’s impeachment scandal, Nixon’s corruption yet the world still had to engage with them as leaders.

Like it or not, Trump was here as a guest of the state. Diplomacy involves a degree of courtesy. Public hostility may feel satisfying in the moment, but it risks overshadowing serious issues and, worse, damaging relationships that impact trade and investment. A reckless approach could have cost Britain billions something far more damaging than a crude slogan.

At its best, protest is powerful because it is sharp, focused, and persuasive. At its worst, it slips into hostility that undermines the very point it seeks to make.