Legal Commentator Preston Byrne Highlights Peril of Government-Defined Rights, Contrasting US and UK Free Speech Protections

Preston Byrne, a prominent legal commentator and dual-qualified UK-US lawyer, recently articulated a critical perspective on the origin of individual rights. In a social media post, Byrne stated, "The claim that 'rights come from government' is a waypoint on the path to '...and the government gets to decide what they are.'" This assertion underscores a fundamental philosophical divide regarding civil liberties, particularly free speech, which he argues should stem from a "non-appealable moral position."

Byrne's commentary emphasizes that grounding rights in a source beyond state authority, such as a divine or inherent moral principle, provides a more robust and unassailable foundation for freedoms. He posits, "Saying our rights come from God, whether you believe in God or not, is a non-appealable moral position. Rights like free speech belong there." This perspective suggests that if rights are merely granted by the state, they can also be revoked or redefined by the same authority, leading to potential erosion of fundamental liberties.

This stance is consistent with Byrne's extensive legal analysis comparing civil liberties in the United Kingdom and the United States. He has previously argued that in the UK, "rights are treated as privileges granted at the whim of politicians," contrasting sharply with the US Constitution's First Amendment, which he describes as an "impervious shield." This distinction, he contends, leads to vastly different levels of protection for freedoms such as speech.

Byrne's concerns are not merely theoretical; he has actively engaged in legal battles reflecting these principles. As managing partner of Byrne & Storm, PC, he has represented US websites, including the online message board 4chan, targeted by the UK's Online Safety Act. In these cases, he has asserted that "American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an email," highlighting the extraterritorial implications of differing legal philosophies on rights.

The legal expert's warning suggests that societies where rights are perceived as state-derived concessions face an inherent vulnerability to governmental overreach. His consistent advocacy for a foundational, non-governmental source for rights like free speech serves as a caution against legislative or judicial actions that could incrementally diminish individual liberties, advocating for a more absolute and constitutionally enshrined protection.