Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

"No evolutionary biologist has a compelling, persuasive or even plausible theory!" Stephen Meyer argues that Cambridge University’s detailed cell reconstruction suggests the universe was created by something more complex. 📺 Piers Morgan | Stephen C. Meyer

Piers Morgan Uncensored

634,179 subscribers

29,804 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

"We've discovered the universe itself definitely had a beginning - we can no longer say it's that eternal self-existing thing!" Piers Morgan asks Stephen Meyer on what, if anything, existed before the universe began. 📺 Piers Morgan | Stephen C. Meyer

"We've discovered the universe itself definitely had a beginning - we can no longer say it's that eternal self-existing thing!" Piers Morgan asks Stephen Meyer on what, if anything, existed before the universe began. 📺 Piers Morgan | Stephen C. Meyer

Piers Morgan Uncensored

206,267 views • 5 months ago

"It's automated to a degree that is just MIND-BLOWING!" Stephen Meyer returns to Uncensored to discuss the 'God Hypothesis' and why he believes it scientifically explains the origin of the universe 👇 📺 Piers Morgan | Stephen C. Meyer

"It's automated to a degree that is just MIND-BLOWING!" Stephen Meyer returns to Uncensored to discuss the 'God Hypothesis' and why he believes it scientifically explains the origin of the universe 👇 📺 Piers Morgan | Stephen C. Meyer

Piers Morgan Uncensored

78,224 views • 5 months ago

Most people were taught Darwin’s theory of evolution explains how all life came to be. What if that’s not the full story? Stephen C. Meyer says growing evidence is challenging that idea, and many scientists are now calling for a new theory of evolution. “There’s a huge difference between the idea that natural selection is a real process… and the claim that it has unlimited creative power.” “Many leading evolutionary biologists today are now calling for a new theory of evolution.” “They recognize that the mutation natural selection mechanism has limited creative power.” “It does a nice job of explaining small-scale variation and adaptation.” “But it doesn’t do a good job of explaining… major new body plans or new forms.” Stephen C. Meyer

Most people were taught Darwin’s theory of evolution explains how all life came to be. What if that’s not the full story? Stephen C. Meyer says growing evidence is challenging that idea, and many scientists are now calling for a new theory of evolution. “There’s a huge difference between the idea that natural selection is a real process… and the claim that it has unlimited creative power.” “Many leading evolutionary biologists today are now calling for a new theory of evolution.” “They recognize that the mutation natural selection mechanism has limited creative power.” “It does a nice job of explaining small-scale variation and adaptation.” “But it doesn’t do a good job of explaining… major new body plans or new forms.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

77,522 views • 5 months ago

Stephen C. Meyer says Darwin’s theory of evolution has, for many, become more like a religion than a scientific theory. “Darwinian evolution functions as a kind of secular religion.” “And you can see why, because it's answering one of the most fundamental questions that any worldview or religion has to answer.” “Which is what is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else came?” “And the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of new forms of life is part of the answer to that really fundamental question, which is not only a scientific question but a philosophical worldview question.” “Because it functions like a secular religion, sometimes there's resistance to a more dispassionate scientific evaluation of its merits.” Stephen C. Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer says Darwin’s theory of evolution has, for many, become more like a religion than a scientific theory. “Darwinian evolution functions as a kind of secular religion.” “And you can see why, because it's answering one of the most fundamental questions that any worldview or religion has to answer.” “Which is what is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else came?” “And the neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin of new forms of life is part of the answer to that really fundamental question, which is not only a scientific question but a philosophical worldview question.” “Because it functions like a secular religion, sometimes there's resistance to a more dispassionate scientific evaluation of its merits.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

199,433 views • 5 months ago

A seismic shift is quietly taking place in the scientific community. Stephen C. Meyer just told me that a growing number of scientists are admitting the theory of evolution is not enough to explain humanity’s origins. And they’re opening up to the theory of intelligent design. So I asked him: why has there been such incredible hostility towards the theory of intelligent design? His answer was illuminating: “The underlying ideology that has governed modern science since the late 19th century is one of materialism.” “There’s a materialistic world view that many scientists have in a sense bolted onto science, and said that science equals materialism.” “There’s been a convention that’s arisen that says: if you’re gonna explain something scientifically, you must explain it by reference to strictly materialistic processes.” “No creative intelligence is allowed as a possible feature in your explanation.” “It reflects an underlying commitment to not just a methodological convention, but a metaphysical commitment.” But things are changing, according to Meyer. “In the last 5 or 10 years, I think there’s a lot more acceptance that… neo-Darwinism is not an adequate evolutionary theory.” “Increasing numbers of scientists are now aligning with our work.” Stephen C. Meyer

A seismic shift is quietly taking place in the scientific community. Stephen C. Meyer just told me that a growing number of scientists are admitting the theory of evolution is not enough to explain humanity’s origins. And they’re opening up to the theory of intelligent design. So I asked him: why has there been such incredible hostility towards the theory of intelligent design? His answer was illuminating: “The underlying ideology that has governed modern science since the late 19th century is one of materialism.” “There’s a materialistic world view that many scientists have in a sense bolted onto science, and said that science equals materialism.” “There’s been a convention that’s arisen that says: if you’re gonna explain something scientifically, you must explain it by reference to strictly materialistic processes.” “No creative intelligence is allowed as a possible feature in your explanation.” “It reflects an underlying commitment to not just a methodological convention, but a metaphysical commitment.” But things are changing, according to Meyer. “In the last 5 or 10 years, I think there’s a lot more acceptance that… neo-Darwinism is not an adequate evolutionary theory.” “Increasing numbers of scientists are now aligning with our work.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

71,211 views • 5 months ago

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

19,015 views • 5 months ago

Stephen Meyer explaining why the discovery of the structure of DNA presented an unexpected challenge to the atheistic worldview: "What's really fun is that Francis Crick was a codebreaker in World War II and he ended up breaking the ultimate code. The irony is that Crick and Watson were also strict scientific materialists. They were atheists and they were looking for the material basis for life, and they thought they found it in 1953 until Crick realized it's not just a molecule. It's a molecule that contains code. And that discovery ends up being foundational. It provides evidence of what we're going to call Intelligent Design. And it has created a complete impass in evolutionary theory. People cannot account for the origin of the information needed to build the first life or subsequent forms of life... Even though Watson and Crick were looking for the material foundation for life, what they actually found was something more like software. And Bill Gates has said that DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced than ever any we've ever created."

Stephen Meyer explaining why the discovery of the structure of DNA presented an unexpected challenge to the atheistic worldview: "What's really fun is that Francis Crick was a codebreaker in World War II and he ended up breaking the ultimate code. The irony is that Crick and Watson were also strict scientific materialists. They were atheists and they were looking for the material basis for life, and they thought they found it in 1953 until Crick realized it's not just a molecule. It's a molecule that contains code. And that discovery ends up being foundational. It provides evidence of what we're going to call Intelligent Design. And it has created a complete impass in evolutionary theory. People cannot account for the origin of the information needed to build the first life or subsequent forms of life... Even though Watson and Crick were looking for the material foundation for life, what they actually found was something more like software. And Bill Gates has said that DNA is like a computer program but far more advanced than ever any we've ever created."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

14,033 views • 5 months ago

Jemele Hill stuns Don Lemon by DEFENDING Stephen A. Smith after the NABJ hit him with its "Thumbs Down" award. HILL: "So, I'm going to try to attempt to do something that isn't always appreciated, and that is have a little NUANCE." "Have the criticisms of Stephen A been unfair? The answer is no. I think they've been completely fair." "But here's where it gets to me a little thorny. Stephen A has exhibited an actual COMMITMENT to black journalism." "There are a lot of black people who can say Stephen A helped me with my career. He created a segment strictly for black voices on his show. I was one of the black columnists that appeared on his show." "While I don't like a lot of the things that he has said, I also cannot absolve or CANNOT ERASE the contributions he's made." Stephen A. Smith has responded to the "Thumbs Down" award by saying: "I was good enough to have a nationally televised show [First Take] at your conference the last two years. And the year I don't come back with the show is when I get the thumbs down award." "If I was saying it [criticisms] about black female conservatives, you wouldn't have said a word. Which means it's not my credibility that's in question; it’s YOURS."

Jemele Hill stuns Don Lemon by DEFENDING Stephen A. Smith after the NABJ hit him with its "Thumbs Down" award. HILL: "So, I'm going to try to attempt to do something that isn't always appreciated, and that is have a little NUANCE." "Have the criticisms of Stephen A been unfair? The answer is no. I think they've been completely fair." "But here's where it gets to me a little thorny. Stephen A has exhibited an actual COMMITMENT to black journalism." "There are a lot of black people who can say Stephen A helped me with my career. He created a segment strictly for black voices on his show. I was one of the black columnists that appeared on his show." "While I don't like a lot of the things that he has said, I also cannot absolve or CANNOT ERASE the contributions he's made." Stephen A. Smith has responded to the "Thumbs Down" award by saying: "I was good enough to have a nationally televised show [First Take] at your conference the last two years. And the year I don't come back with the show is when I get the thumbs down award." "If I was saying it [criticisms] about black female conservatives, you wouldn't have said a word. Which means it's not my credibility that's in question; it’s YOURS."

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

136,423 views • 1 month ago

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!

Jan Jekielek

11,823 views • 5 months ago

Yesterday, Trump said something that was missed by almost all major media outlets, even more so by the Armenian ones. “There is a nation thinking about going to war on something no one is this room has even heard of..” Did Trump prevent Azerbaijans invasion of Armenia? ⬇️🧵

Yesterday, Trump said something that was missed by almost all major media outlets, even more so by the Armenian ones. “There is a nation thinking about going to war on something no one is this room has even heard of..” Did Trump prevent Azerbaijans invasion of Armenia? ⬇️🧵

Ver Media

11,726 views • 1 year ago

Stephen Kotkin argues that a leftist revolution was inevitable in Russia in 1917. Why? The peasantry. Other European countries had leftist uprisings in cities. But rural, traditional forces of order were always able to put them down. In Russia, by contrast, the peasants had no reason to support the tsarist regime. By 1917 there were near-constant peasant uprisings and revolts. This created a massive opportunity for leftists in cities, which Lenin exploited. The tragedy is that the peasants' radicalism helped create the Soviet regime that would later starve and kill millions of them.

Stephen Kotkin argues that a leftist revolution was inevitable in Russia in 1917. Why? The peasantry. Other European countries had leftist uprisings in cities. But rural, traditional forces of order were always able to put them down. In Russia, by contrast, the peasants had no reason to support the tsarist regime. By 1917 there were near-constant peasant uprisings and revolts. This created a massive opportunity for leftists in cities, which Lenin exploited. The tragedy is that the peasants' radicalism helped create the Soviet regime that would later starve and kill millions of them.

Dwarkesh Patel

27,644 views • 4 months ago

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematician Prof John Lennox, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, and chemist Dr James Tour to examine what modern science suggests about the origin of the universe and life itself. Moving from the Big Bang and the discovery of cosmic beginnings, to the fine-tuning of the physical constants that make life possible, to the extraordinary complexity and information embedded in DNA, the conversation explores whether these developments point to blind, undirected processes—or to the activity of an intelligent mind. The trio challenges long-held materialist assumptions, revisits classic scientific debates, and reflects on what these questions mean not only for science but also for our understanding of human existence and purpose. Uncommon Knowledge Discovery Institute

On a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematician Prof John Lennox, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer, and chemist Dr James Tour to examine what modern science suggests about the origin of the universe and life itself. Moving from the Big Bang and the discovery of cosmic beginnings, to the fine-tuning of the physical constants that make life possible, to the extraordinary complexity and information embedded in DNA, the conversation explores whether these developments point to blind, undirected processes—or to the activity of an intelligent mind. The trio challenges long-held materialist assumptions, revisits classic scientific debates, and reflects on what these questions mean not only for science but also for our understanding of human existence and purpose. Uncommon Knowledge Discovery Institute

Hoover Institution

33,075 views • 5 months ago

Everyone assumed string theory was finally dying. It's not dying. It's worse. Physicists have written more papers on string theory than on any other idea in the field's history. Fifty years of work. It has never once produced a testable prediction. Last week an essay asked the question directly: is string theory still our best hope for a theory of everything? The answer given was yes. Here's the actual argument behind that yes. String theory is "inevitable" — as long as you first assume a universe that doesn't exist. That's not a rebuttal to the critics. That's the entire case for the defense. 50 years. 100,000+ papers. Entire careers built on a framework nobody has ever tested, defended by physicists who now have to assume a fictional universe just to keep it alive. Is this still physics, or is it the most expensive tautology in the history of science?

Everyone assumed string theory was finally dying. It's not dying. It's worse. Physicists have written more papers on string theory than on any other idea in the field's history. Fifty years of work. It has never once produced a testable prediction. Last week an essay asked the question directly: is string theory still our best hope for a theory of everything? The answer given was yes. Here's the actual argument behind that yes. String theory is "inevitable" — as long as you first assume a universe that doesn't exist. That's not a rebuttal to the critics. That's the entire case for the defense. 50 years. 100,000+ papers. Entire careers built on a framework nobody has ever tested, defended by physicists who now have to assume a fictional universe just to keep it alive. Is this still physics, or is it the most expensive tautology in the history of science?

Alex Carten

38,340 views • 1 month ago

Is Reality a Simulation, and Who Is Watching? Elon Musk has explored this question for years, yet no one knows the answer. Is reality exactly what it appears to be, or is something far more intelligent watching from beyond it? Simulation theory suggests that the universe, Earth, time, matter, and even consciousness could exist inside an advanced artificial reality created by beings far more intelligent and technologically advanced than humanity. Take Elon’s life, for example. After selling PayPal, he could have lived comfortably for the rest of his life. Instead, he chose to build SpaceX, invest in Tesla, and pursue even greater ambitions through Starlink, Starship, Neuralink, X, xAI, and Grok. But what if he had chosen differently? What if he had never started SpaceX, walked away from Tesla, or given up after his early failures? Would he still have reached the same place, or would one decision have completely changed his future? Perhaps every choice was already written into the simulation. Perhaps each decision created a different path, or even another reality in which Elon lived a completely different life. If superior beings created our reality, are they still watching us? Are we part of an experiment, a story, or something the human mind cannot yet understand? Maybe one day, true artificial general intelligence will help us answer the question Elon has suggested asking: “What is outside the simulation?” Until then, keep living, keep making choices, and make this reality as interesting as possible.

Is Reality a Simulation, and Who Is Watching? Elon Musk has explored this question for years, yet no one knows the answer. Is reality exactly what it appears to be, or is something far more intelligent watching from beyond it? Simulation theory suggests that the universe, Earth, time, matter, and even consciousness could exist inside an advanced artificial reality created by beings far more intelligent and technologically advanced than humanity. Take Elon’s life, for example. After selling PayPal, he could have lived comfortably for the rest of his life. Instead, he chose to build SpaceX, invest in Tesla, and pursue even greater ambitions through Starlink, Starship, Neuralink, X, xAI, and Grok. But what if he had chosen differently? What if he had never started SpaceX, walked away from Tesla, or given up after his early failures? Would he still have reached the same place, or would one decision have completely changed his future? Perhaps every choice was already written into the simulation. Perhaps each decision created a different path, or even another reality in which Elon lived a completely different life. If superior beings created our reality, are they still watching us? Are we part of an experiment, a story, or something the human mind cannot yet understand? Maybe one day, true artificial general intelligence will help us answer the question Elon has suggested asking: “What is outside the simulation?” Until then, keep living, keep making choices, and make this reality as interesting as possible.

SMX 🇺🇸

12,014 views • 1 month ago

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen C. Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics. From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn't material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the "unreasonable effectiveness" of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in. This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Hoover Institution

51,619 views • 8 months ago

SNEAKO reacts as Piers Morgan explains how he once met Ghislaine Maxwell at a Manhattan event, saying he didn’t know who she was at the time 👀 “I went to a book launch for a guy who was editor of a British newspaper in Manhattan. There were a lot of well-known people there, like Stephen Fry. I was introduced to a woman I didn’t know called Ghislaine Maxwell. The link was that I was editor of the Daily Mirror in the UK, which was owned for many years by her father, Robert Maxwell, who later fell off a boat.” “So knowing all this, Piers, why are you allegedly, in my opinion, insinuating that he works for Russia? Wait… whoa… huh? No, Piers, hang on, hang on. Do you condemn this party, Piers? I’m disgusted and horrified. Do you condemn this party you went to? What? The daughter of a Mossad agent.”

SNEAKO reacts as Piers Morgan explains how he once met Ghislaine Maxwell at a Manhattan event, saying he didn’t know who she was at the time 👀 “I went to a book launch for a guy who was editor of a British newspaper in Manhattan. There were a lot of well-known people there, like Stephen Fry. I was introduced to a woman I didn’t know called Ghislaine Maxwell. The link was that I was editor of the Daily Mirror in the UK, which was owned for many years by her father, Robert Maxwell, who later fell off a boat.” “So knowing all this, Piers, why are you allegedly, in my opinion, insinuating that he works for Russia? Wait… whoa… huh? No, Piers, hang on, hang on. Do you condemn this party, Piers? I’m disgusted and horrified. Do you condemn this party you went to? What? The daughter of a Mossad agent.”

SNEAKO UPDATES

15,710 views • 8 months ago

If you need any more evidence that an Islamic blasphemy law has taken root in Britain, look no further than the case of Stephen Gray. It is truly one of the most extraordinary cases the FSU has ever come across. A former police officer who gave 30 years of public service had a knock at the door from the police after his neighbour reported him for reposting something on Facebook. In April, Stephen was convicted of being “grossly offensive” — an offence under the Communications Act 2003 — for reposting a joke about Islam. The post featured an image of a rasher of bacon and a man in a turban, accompanied by the text: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9 year old!” While giving evidence, Stephen explained that the post was a reference to the marriage between the Prophet Mohammed and Aisha, which occurred when she was six and was consummated when she was nine. It was a satirical post, but also sought to make a serious point about child marriage. But the district judge wasn’t having any of it. Stephen was ordered to pay £1,100 in fines, plus legal costs, and now has a criminal conviction. The Free Speech Union is supporting Stephen in appealing his conviction. If you are still in any doubt that Britain’s blasphemy laws have returned, 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish them — for Islam alone — take a look at Stephen’s case. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw explain and donate to the fundraiser 👇

If you need any more evidence that an Islamic blasphemy law has taken root in Britain, look no further than the case of Stephen Gray. It is truly one of the most extraordinary cases the FSU has ever come across. A former police officer who gave 30 years of public service had a knock at the door from the police after his neighbour reported him for reposting something on Facebook. In April, Stephen was convicted of being “grossly offensive” — an offence under the Communications Act 2003 — for reposting a joke about Islam. The post featured an image of a rasher of bacon and a man in a turban, accompanied by the text: “Fun facts about bacon! People who eat bacon have a lower chance of marrying a 9 year old!” While giving evidence, Stephen explained that the post was a reference to the marriage between the Prophet Mohammed and Aisha, which occurred when she was six and was consummated when she was nine. It was a satirical post, but also sought to make a serious point about child marriage. But the district judge wasn’t having any of it. Stephen was ordered to pay £1,100 in fines, plus legal costs, and now has a criminal conviction. The Free Speech Union is supporting Stephen in appealing his conviction. If you are still in any doubt that Britain’s blasphemy laws have returned, 18 years after Parliament voted to abolish them — for Islam alone — take a look at Stephen’s case. Watch FSU External Affairs Officer Connie Shaw explain and donate to the fundraiser 👇

The Free Speech Union

126,399 views • 1 month ago