The PR Blog

 In 1925, a small courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee, became the stage for a battle over ideas. The Scopes Trial - immortalised in the film Inherit the Wind - pitted a young teacher, John Scopes, against the state’s Butler Act, which banned the teaching of evolution in schools.

The trial wasn’t just about science versus religion; it was about who gets to control thought.

Clarence Darrow, defending Scopes, warned that dogmatic gatekeepers -religious or secular - pose the greatest threat to the human right to question and reason.

A century later, that warning feels prophetic.

Today’s battle over free inquiry isn’t fought in courtrooms but across digital platforms and halls of government. Governments in the UK, Canada, and Australia are wielding vague laws and weaponised labels - “racist,” “bigot,” “misinformation” - to silence dissent, all in the name of protection.from Australia’s under-16 social media “delay” to the UK’s arrests for “mean tweets,” we are edging toward a digital Butler Act.

Only bold resistance - by figures like Elon Musk and by ordinary citizens - can halt the quiet march on freedom.

The Scopes Trial: A Warning from History

1960 version with Spencer Tracy

The Scopes Trial wasn’t about deciding whether evolution was true; it was about defending the right to discuss it.

Tennessee’s Butler Act outlawed any theory contradicting biblical creation, branding evolution as heretical.

Scopes, backed by Darrow and the The American Civil Liberties Union - ACLU, never expected acquittal. His conviction and $100 fine were almost beside the point. The trial’s purpose was to expose the danger of enforced orthodoxy - to make Americans confront the idea that laws could punish thought itself.

Footage from the actual trial

In Inherit the Wind, Darrow’s fictional counterpart, Henry Drummond, thunders against the “narrow-mindedness” that stifles curiosity:

“Right has no meaning to me unless I can do what I think is right.”

The law itself stood until 1967, but the trial sparked a broader awakening about intellectual freedom. It showed that even a losing battle can shift a culture’s direction.

A century after the original trial, the threat is subtler but no less potent. Instead of banning books or theories, governments and tech platforms now police speech through nebulous “hate” or “harm” provisions, backed by labels that end argument before it begins. Call someone a “Nazi” or “Islamophobe,” and no evidence is required; the accusation itself nullifies their credibility.

George Orwell warned that controlling language means controlling thought. When governments codify moral labels into law, the result is a society where people hesitate before speaking - aware that one careless word could cost them their livelihood, reputation, or liberty.

Labels as the New Dogma

In the digital age, labels have become the new heresies. Words like “racist,” “bigot,” or “misinformation” aren’t just insults - they’re weapons. They bypass reason entirely, branding dissenters as moral outcasts.

On social media, one accusation can lead to deplatforming, job loss, or social exile. Governments have joined in, embedding these labels into legal frameworks that turn subjective offense into objective crime.

In Canada, Bill C-63 - advancing through Parliament in 2025 - proposes life imprisonment for “hate speech” causing “emotional harm,” with “hateful” left undefined. In Australia, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act already bans speech that “offends or insults” based on race, while proposed amendments would extend this to religion and gender identity. These laws may sound compassionate, but they incentivise silence. Why risk prosecution - or social ruin - for a comment taken out of context?

The United Kingdom offers the starkest warning. Its Online Safety Act, fully enforced in 2025, and older “malicious communications” laws have led to roughly 12,000 arrests a year for “offensive” posts - around thirty people a day. The alleged offenses range from “causing annoyance” to “inducing anxiety.”

After the 2024 Southport riots, over a thousand citizens were arrested for online posts deemed to “incite racial hatred.” One woman received a 31-month sentence for tweeting “mass deportation now.” Another was investigated over a private WhatsApp message criticising a school’s gender policy. Meanwhile, 90 percent of violent crimes in Britain go unsolved. As one X user quipped, “It’s 1984 - with better Wi-Fi.”

The parallel to the Scopes Trial is unmistakable. Then, it was religious authority deciding which ideas were dangerous; today, it’s a secular orthodoxy of “inclusivity” and “safety.” To question immigration policy, gender ideology, or climate dogma risks being branded harmful - just as Darwin’s theory was once branded blasphemous. The result is a chilling effect that punishes curiosity and rewards conformity.

Australia’s Social Media Ban: Protection or Control?

Australia’s forthcoming under-16 social media “delay,” set to begin December 10, 2025, epitomises this new paternalism. Framed as protecting children from online harms, the policy will prohibit anyone under sixteen from holding accounts on platforms such as YouTube, X, TikTok - or even GitHub. Companies that fail to enforce it face fines of up to A$50 million.

On the surface, the goal sounds noble: shield children from predators, cyberbullying, and addictive algorithms. But the method is a blunt instrument. It will also cut off access to educational resources and creative outlets. A rural teenager who learns coding through GitHub or watches free science tutorials on YouTube will be locked out - punished for the sins of the algorithm.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has already warned that the policy risks violating young people’s right to access information and express themselves - especially those in remote or low-income areas who rely on free online tools.

Even more troubling is how the law will be enforced. Platforms must take “reasonable steps” to verify users’ ages, which in practice means AI facial scans, behavioural tracking, or government-linked ID uploads. Trials have shown facial-age tools misidentifying teenagers nearly three-quarters of the time, forcing companies toward mandatory ID verification. Critics - including members of Parliament- warn this is a backdoor to a national digital ID system, eroding privacy and anonymity while exposing sensitive data to potential breaches.

The eSafety Commissioner’s global takedown powers already reveal a taste for overreach. In 2024, the office demanded that X remove videos of a Sydney stabbing worldwide - not just in Australia - raising questions about a national regulator asserting global jurisdiction over speech.

This is not about safety; it is about control. The Butler Act once claimed to “protect” students from heresy. Australia’s social-media law risks “protecting” youth from curiosity itself, normalising state oversight of private thought. The United Nations’ praise for the law as a potential “global model” only deepens the unease. Or dis ease. Or disease. Up to you how you read this. 

The UK’s ‘Mean Tweets’ Crackdown

Britain’s experience shows how easily good intentions metastasise into repression. Under the Online Safety Act and legacy speech laws, police routinely arrest citizens for posts deemed “grossly offensive.” The conviction rate is modest - 137 immediate prison terms out of 1,160 prosecutions in 2024 -  but the process itself is the punishment. Dawn raids, public shaming, and loss of employment follow even minor infractions.A journalist questioned for a single tweet about immigration; parents investigated for a private WhatsApp chat -  these are not isolated anomalies but symptoms of a culture that values emotional comfort over free thought.

The grooming-gang scandals of the 2010s revealed the danger: investigations were delayed for years because officials feared accusations of racism. When labels carry such moral weight, truth becomes secondary to optics. Once again, the state decides which ideas are too dangerous to discuss -  and society pays the price.

Resistance: The Musk Factor and Beyond

Enter Elon Musk. Since acquiring X in 2022, he has become both hero and heretic in the global debate over speech. His 2024 posts calling the UK a “tin-pot dictatorship” and denouncing Australia’s social-media restrictions as “backdoor surveillance” reached millions, reframing censorship as a democratic betrayal rather than a public-safety issue.

Whatever one thinks of Musk’s style, his defiance has reopened a vital conversation: should unelected regulators decide what billions of people may read, share, or say? Under his ownership, X’s algorithm now favours unfiltered dialogue -  from critics of mass migration to skeptics of gender policy -  who might be banned elsewhere.

When Australia’s eSafety Commissioner demanded global content removals, Musk refused and fought the order in court. It was an imperfect stand -  X still faces advertiser boycotts and occasional suspensions -  but it marked a turning point.

Yet no single billionaire can preserve free speech. Governments wield fines, ISP blocks, and supranational pressure under the EU’s Digital Services Act. But resistance breeds resistance. X users document absurd arrests in real time. Civil-liberties groups such as the UK’s Free Speech Union and Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs are challenging censorship laws in court. The Scopes Trial proved that one voice -  Darrow’s -  can ignite a movement. Today, those voices are millions strong.

A Call to Action

The parallels between 1925 and 2025 are impossible to miss. Then, it was a teacher punished for discussing evolution. Now, it’s a journalist, a parent, or a teenager punished for a post. Both battles ask the same question: Who decides what may be said?

The answer must be no one. The antidote to bad ideas is better ones, not silence. The solution is not to abandon safety or compassion but to insist on clarity over vagueness, debate over decree.

Governments should:

• Clarify laws: Define “hate” and “harm” narrowly to prevent abuse.

• Prioritise education: Fund digital literacy instead of blanket bans.

• Protect anonymity: Reject digital-ID systems that erode privacy.

• Encourage debate: Platforms should host discussion, not enforce orthodoxy.

Citizens, too, have power. Use humour, data, and storytelling to expose overreach. Support organisations defending speech. Share lessons from Inherit the Wind to remind others what’s truly at stake.

The Scopes Trial didn’t repeal the Butler Act overnight - but it showed that silence is never safety. Darrow lost the case yet won the argument, because he refused to bow to fear.

We need that courage again. Before the digital courtroom closes its doors, we must reclaim the oldest human freedom - the right to think, speak, and be wrong.

The film Inherit the Wind, remade in 1998 is on Prime.