Free Speech or Incitement? Legal Implications of Glastonbury Performances Under Review

The intersection of freedom of expression and criminal liability is once again under scrutiny after comments made by musical artists at the 2025 Glastonbury Festival have prompted police investigation.

Somerset police have confirmed they are assessing footage and statements to determine whether any criminal offences may have been committed on stage.

The Events in Question

Rapper Bobby Vylan, performing on the West Holts Stage, led chants including “Free, free Palestine” and allegedly shouted “Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces)” to the crowd. The performance was accompanied by visuals referencing the United Nations’ stance on the Gaza conflict and criticising UK media coverage.

Separately, Irish hip hop group Kneecap – whose member Liam O’Hanna is already facing terrorism-related charges for a previous event – made remarks during their Glastonbury set that included criticism of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and a seemingly contradictory call to “start a riot outside the courts” followed by “No riots just love and support.”

Legal Framework: Speech vs Criminal Conduct

Free Speech Protections

The UK upholds the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. However, this right is qualified, meaning it can be restricted for reasons including national security, public safety, and the prevention of disorder or crime.

Potential Criminal Offences

The comments made at Glastonbury could engage several criminal statutes, including:

• Public Order Act 1986 – particularly sections covering incitement to violence or racial hatred.
• Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 – which prohibits the glorification of terrorism or support for proscribed organisations.
• Serious Crime Act 2007 – under which encouragement or assisting criminal acts can be considered an offence.

The chant “Death to the IDF,” for example, could potentially be construed as an incitement to violence against members of a national armed force, especially if interpreted as advocating harm against individuals based on national origin or political affiliation.

Arguments for and Against Prosecution

Reasons Supporting Legal Action

• Prevention of Extremism: Normalising such rhetoric at public events may risk radicalisation or legitimising extremist viewpoints.
• Public Safety: Remarks interpreted as encouraging disorder (e.g. “start a riot”) could be deemed to threaten peace and safety.
• Reinforcing Rule of Law: Prosecuting potentially unlawful speech maintains the boundary between protected opinion and criminal conduct.

Arguments Against Prosecution

• Contextual Interpretation: Courts often consider the artistic or political context. Hyperbolic or satirical speech is less likely to meet the legal threshold for incitement.
• Freedom of Expression: Overzealous policing may be seen as suppressing legitimate political discourse or dissent.
• Public Interest Test: The Crown Prosecution Service must weigh the seriousness of the offence against the public interest in pursuing charges.

Conclusion

While freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of democratic society, it is not without limits—especially when it intersects with speech that may incite violence or promote hatred.

Whether any criminal charges emerge from Glastonbury 2025 will depend on the specific language used, the intent behind it, and its impact on the audience.

As of now, Somerset Police have confirmed that investigations are ongoing and that all video evidence is being carefully reviewed. This case could set an important precedent in the debate between free speech and speech with legal consequences in the UK.

How We Can Help

If you have any concerns or questions over comments you have made online and are worried about potential prosection, our team of experts are on-hand to help. If you have any questions or concerns, call us on 0161 477 1121 or contact us by email.