> The only chance any of this stuff could be reformed is off the back of a party with a huge majority ramming it through
The Courts could do something about it. The European Convention on Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the Convention into UK law) protects freedom of speech. Its free speech guarantee has a lengthy list of exceptions, but it is up to the Courts to interpret the scope of the exceptions. Thus far, they've tended to read them broadly, limiting the value of the Convention's free speech guarantees; but, maybe one day the Courts will start interpreting them in a more narrow way. I wouldn't get one's hopes up, but it wouldn't be an impossible development.
The UK Conservative government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a "British Bill of Rights" [0]. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be. On the one hand, the overall intention is to "water down" the European Convention on Human Rights, making it harder to pursue claims under it in the UK Courts. On the other hand, the UK government wants it to put special emphasis on "free speech" rights. In particular, it wants to prioritise freedom of the press over the right to privacy, contrary to recent case law which the UK government perceives as putting the priority the other way around. We can't yet know whether this project of replacing the Human Rights Act will succeed, nor can we yet know what exactly any replacement legislation will say, nor can we yet know what the Courts will make of it. But it is possible that it might improve the situation on free speech, even at the price of regression in other areas of human rights protection.
The Courts could do something about it. The European Convention on Human Rights (and the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporates the Convention into UK law) protects freedom of speech. Its free speech guarantee has a lengthy list of exceptions, but it is up to the Courts to interpret the scope of the exceptions. Thus far, they've tended to read them broadly, limiting the value of the Convention's free speech guarantees; but, maybe one day the Courts will start interpreting them in a more narrow way. I wouldn't get one's hopes up, but it wouldn't be an impossible development.
The UK Conservative government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a "British Bill of Rights" [0]. It is hard to predict what the outcome will be. On the one hand, the overall intention is to "water down" the European Convention on Human Rights, making it harder to pursue claims under it in the UK Courts. On the other hand, the UK government wants it to put special emphasis on "free speech" rights. In particular, it wants to prioritise freedom of the press over the right to privacy, contrary to recent case law which the UK government perceives as putting the priority the other way around. We can't yet know whether this project of replacing the Human Rights Act will succeed, nor can we yet know what exactly any replacement legislation will say, nor can we yet know what the Courts will make of it. But it is possible that it might improve the situation on free speech, even at the price of regression in other areas of human rights protection.
[0] https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act...