Article by Narcis Drejan – published Wednesday, June 04, 2025, 10:25 / Updated Wednesday, 04 June 2025 10:28
It is difficult to talk about freedom of expression in 2025 without giving a paradox as much as the house: everyone invokes it, but too few respect it when it stings at the liver and at the amounts of money.
Gary Lineker's case is an example of a manual on how to turn a sports commentator into a public enemy just because he allowed himself to repost some uncomfortable opinions about Gaza.
How Lineker's mouth closed BBC
The BBC brake suddenly, like a ridesharing driver who missed the corner, and decided that Lineker had to leave. The official reason? A post with a rat (irony, as if he had invented the anti -Semitic symbol) and, more recently, that he distributes the opinions of Alastair Campbell. But you know what? Here we are not just talking about Gary Lineker.
We are talking about a public institution, financed from the money of the British, who should guarantee freedom of expression, does not suffer with corporate kindness.
Who sets what is acceptable and what is not? BBC? The government? A commission of experts analyzing each comma on X and decides whether or not they like it? Freedom of expression is beautiful on paper, but in practice, it is more an endurance test for those resisting the wave of hypocrisy.
Gary Lineker, with all his posts about Gaza, Brexit and any other topic that concerns him, is just a collateral victim of a world in which you are allowed to say anything-but only if it matches the decor.
So, dear BBC, Dear Establishment, dear anyone who feels with the bite on the cap: freedom of expression does not come with a discount label. Either you have it for good, either we play democracy with the newspaper under the cat.
Gary Lineker // Photo: Guliver/Gettyimages
But is Salah not allowed to an opinion?
And, colac over the stern, what to see? The BBC decided to put the interview with Salah under the price. The reason? Too sensitive the subject Gaza. Well, if neither Salah-a man from an area of conflict, Muslim, and the world super-star-is not allowed to say his opinion, who still has? In this world, it is more ok to talk about Grealish's mill than some children dying in Gaza.
It's laughing, but also crying. BBC, instead of assuming the role of public channel and showing that it gives voice to the uncomfortable, prefers to shut up. What democracy is that in which football players are reduced to convenient silence just because they do not kiss with their image of “neutral”? Salah is more than a footballer, it is a symbol, and that is why silence is even harder.
If you do not leave Salah to speak, at least he admits that freedom of expression to you is more false than the lime.
Genocide is in Gaza too
In this world with double standards, it is fascinating how everyone revolts (and right!) When we hear genocide in Rwanda, Algeria, Srebrenica or Ukraine. When it comes to Gaza, however, suddenly, the word “genocide” becomes a political bomb that BBC handles with surgical gloves.
Genocide is no less genocide just because you are afraid you don't mind sponsors. Rwanda? It was genocide. Algeria? It was genocide. Srebrenica? Clean genocide. Ukraine? Genocide, even with all controversies. But Gaza? Wait that the subject is too sensitive, we better call him “conflict” and leave Salah on the cough.
And then what about the freedom of expression? What about the right to name things on their behalf? When the selection of words becomes more important than the truth, we have reached the time when freedom of expression is only a sound background at matches on the match of the day.
