Graham Linehan has addressed a US Congressional committee regarding threats to free speech and online censorship, asserting that ideology and freedom of speech “cannot coexist”.
The Father Ted co-creator, 57, took to the stand as a witness today, to address the US House Judiciary Committee in Washington, convened by allies of Donald Trump who are examining online speech restrictions.
The hearing, titled “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation: Part II,” examined censorship and free speech.
Mr Linehan, the creator of Father Ted and The IT Crowd, moved to Arizona in late 2024, citing a lack of work in the UK due to his vocal opposition to certain aspects of gender-identity ideology.
Graham Linehan spoke to the US House Judiciary subcommittee today
|
GB NEWS
Mr Linehan had originally intended to argue that Britain’s cultural establishment, including the Prime Minister, was not confronting culture war issues.
He told the Telegraph: “Sir Keir came to power saying that he was going to end the culture war, but what he’s actually done is he’s hidden from it.
“I want to point out that this elite is kind of working against the interests of working-class people.
“He has made it a million times worse, and it won’t get better until he’s gone.”
Graham Linehan has previously spoken out on his experience of being ‘cancelled’ for his views | PAMr Linehan’s testimony follows his September detention at Heathrow, where five armed officers questioned him over gender-critical posts he made online.
The incident induced Mr Linehan to vow to hold the Metropolitan Police accountable.
Scotland Yard later dropped the investigation and Mr Linehan announced plans to pursue legal action.
The case has drawn the attention of President Trump’s administration, which has criticised foreign laws it sees as restricting speech.
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Jim Jordan, includes several Trump allies.
In August, Mr Jordan and two colleagues visited the UK to investigate censorship, later describing themselves as “shocked” by what they observed.
The administration has also criticised the UK’s Online Safety Act, which requires platforms to remove harmful content or face fines of up to £18million or 10 per cent of revenue.
Ahead of the hearing, Mr Jordan said: “Europe’s censorship unfairly targets American companies and threatens American innovation.”
During his testimony, Mr Linehan outlined the personal cost of speaking out on gender ideology, describing how his career and marriage were affected.
He said: “Single sex spaces are essential for women’s privacy, dignity and safety.
“Children should not undergo experimental medical treatment that ravages their health and shortens their lives.
“Women have a right to a fair sport. These were not extreme positions, but for holding them, I became the target of a series of harassment campaigns that cost me my career, my marriage, and eventually drove me from my homeland for a decade.”
Mr Linehan called on lawmakers to take concrete action
|
GB NEWSHe warned that modern censorship often occurs without direct state involvement, with institutions and employers enforcing ideological conformity.
“For the state has learned to let others do its work when employers fire workers for protected speech, when banks close accounts, when publishers drop authors, when platforms suspend users.
“The government’s hands stay clean. The censorship happens. The state didn’t do it. In Britain, we have discovered that you can have formal free speech and no free speech at all.”
Mr Linehan also made a stark point about the perceived conflict between gender ideology and free speech.
“I want everyone to understand that gender ideology and free speech cannot coexist.
“You can hear the lie in the very language. Trans woman meaning man. Trans man meaning woman. Trans healthcare meaning the opposite of health care. Trans rights, meaning mens, demands an ideology that tells lesbians they are bigoted.”
He concluded by urging lawmakers to take concrete action, including pressuring the British and Irish governments and strengthening protections for those silenced by institutional retaliation.
“People from all walks of life are being silenced by the institutions that license and employ them. We need new whistleblower protections for the digital age.
“If government will not defend dissenters from institutional retaliation and mob rule, then what is the First Amendment for?”





