Ben Shapiro Suggests Deporting Prince Harry Over Free Speech Concerns

In a spirited exchange that quickly gained traction online, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro suggested that Prince Harry should be deported from the United States. The remarks surfaced during a televised panel discussion focused on freedom of speech and recent developments in the United Kingdom. While partly delivered in jest, the comments underscored deeper tensions surrounding debates on expression, cultural values, and the contrasting approaches between the United States and Europe.

Shapiro's Remark and the Panel's Reaction

During the discussion, Shapiro criticized the UK’s crackdown on free speech through heightened regulation of online platforms and criminal action against social media posts deemed offensive. He argued that British authorities have prioritized monitoring speech over addressing severe criminal issues, such as organized sex trafficking and grooming gangs.

Pivoting from this critique, Shapiro issued a quip about the consequences of Britain’s stance on speech: “There’s only one thing we can do. We must deport Prince Harry.” This line immediately drew laughter from the panel.

Greg Gutfeld, hosting the segment, continued the humor by asking, “Do we also deport his balls?” Shapiro, quick to respond, joked, “I assume you’re talking about Meghan Markle.” Fellow commentator Kat Timpf joined the banter, saying, “She’s got him in her purse,” amplifying the room’s laughter and the viral nature of the exchange.

Although the conversation carried a comedic tone, it tapped into broader public conversations about the role Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are playing in American culture and discourse since stepping away from royal duties.

Prince Harry’s Past Criticism of the First Amendment

Central to Shapiro’s remark is Prince Harry’s previous public criticism of free speech protections in the United States. In a 2021 podcast appearance, Harry described the First Amendment as “bonkers,” sparking immediate backlash from American commentators. While he clarified that his remarks reflected confusion about the nuances of U.S. laws, many conservatives seized on his words as evidence of cultural disconnect.

Harry’s comments highlighted longstanding differences in how the U.S. and the UK regulate speech. In America, the First Amendment provides robust protections against government interference in expression, encompassing even controversial or offensive views. By contrast, Britain maintains stricter limits, with laws targeting “hate speech,” defamation, and offensive online behavior. The disparity reflects two divergent philosophies: an absolutist American approach versus a more restrictive European model rooted in balancing expression with social harmony.

Historical Background: Free Speech Traditions in the U.S. and UK

The cultural rift over speech traces back to the foundational documents of each nation. The U.S. Constitution enshrined freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights in 1791, cementing it as one of the most sacrosanct values in American civic life. Over time, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the scope of this freedom, from landmark decisions like Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which protected radical speech unless directly inciting violence, to more modern rulings covering online expression.

By contrast, Britain’s legal tradition arises from common law and parliamentary regulations that emphasize balancing rights with collective security. The UK does not have a written constitution equivalent to America’s, and laws such as the Public Order Act and the Communications Act have enabled authorities to pursue legal actions against individuals for offensive remarks online. Supporters argue this prevents incitement to violence or discrimination, while critics contend it stifles open debate.

The Economic and Cultural Impact of Prince Harry in the U.S.

Shapiro’s deportation quip also reignited discussions about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s presence in the United States. Since relocating to California in 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have launched high-profile media ventures, including Netflix and Spotify production deals, earning significant economic attention. According to industry estimates, their multi-year contracts collectively bring in tens of millions of dollars.

On a cultural level, the couple embodies a unique blend of old-world royalty and modern celebrity. Their interviews, philanthropic initiatives, and media presence often touch on sensitive political and social issues, occasionally sparking controversy but also capturing global attention. In some circles, Harry’s criticisms of American life come across as tone-deaf, especially when juxtaposed against the privileges he enjoys within the U.S. media ecosystem.

From a tourism and economy standpoint, their relocation has positioned Montecito, California, as an unusual hub for both royal fascination and celebrity culture. Real estate agencies in the region reported increased interest in high-value properties following the couple’s move, reflecting how their presence has altered regional dynamics.

Broader Reactions to Shapiro’s Comments

While many dismissed Shapiro’s statement as satirical, reactions were swift across social media platforms. Supporters of the commentator argued the remark reflected widespread frustration with perceived elitism from international figures who criticize American values while benefiting from U.S. resources. Others viewed it as a distraction from more pressing discussions about online censorship and the global rise of regulatory limitations on speech.

Public reactions also varied in the UK, where free speech remains a contentious policy area. With laws pending or under review related to digital regulation, many Britons feel caught between protecting society from harmful rhetoric and safeguarding the right to open discourse. Prince Harry’s earlier comments provided fodder for critics of increased regulation, who argue that such limitations risk turning Britain into a landscape of restricted civic dialogue.

Regional Comparisons: Europe and Beyond

The debate is not limited to the U.S. and UK. Across Europe, countries have implemented varying degrees of speech regulation. Germany enforces some of the strictest laws, requiring social media companies to remove hateful content within 24 hours or face steep fines. France and Canada follow similar models, with legislation designed to combat extremism and misinformation.

In contrast, the U.S. maintains its position as one of the most speech-protected nations on earth, with courts repeatedly affirming the right to controversial or offensive thoughts under the principle that more speech, not less, is the best remedy.

Asian nations present yet another contrast. In countries like China, speech is heavily monitored and censored, positioning them at the opposite extreme of the spectrum. Free speech watchdogs frequently warn that growing acceptance of censorship in liberal democracies could creep toward more authoritarian models.

Economic Stakes in the Free Speech Debate

The conversation about Prince Harry and Shapiro’s remark is not just cultural—it is also tied to economic considerations. The free flow of information is integral to American industry, from news organizations to Silicon Valley tech giants. Strict regulation, as seen in European Union rules, can limit the growth of social media platforms and create compliance costs that affect profitability.

In Britain, media outlets frequently grapple with balancing editorial freedom against regulatory scrutiny. Critics warn that entrepreneurial ventures, creative industries, and even academic institutions could face chilling effects if speech restrictions continue expanding. Supporters of regulation argue, however, that curbing harmful speech helps safeguard economic productivity by reducing societal tensions and addressing inequality.

Conclusion: A Moment of Humor With Deeper Implications

While Ben Shapiro’s suggestion to deport Prince Harry was delivered in a humorous tone, the exchange pointed to underlying cultural divides regarding free speech, national values, and the role of high-profile foreign figures in American life. Prince Harry’s involvement in U.S. debates highlights a cross-Atlantic clash of traditions: one rooted in nearly unconditional free expression, the other emphasizing responsible boundaries on speech.

For Americans, the First Amendment remains a cornerstone of civic identity, fiercely defended even when controversial. For Britons and Europeans, the priority often lies in balancing rights with protections against harm. Shapiro’s quip, therefore, may have been lighthearted, but it raised questions about whether these two traditions can coexist in a globalized era where speech crosses borders faster than ever before.

In the end, Prince Harry remains firmly planted in California, and the debate rolls on, illustrating how one moment of levity can reignite some of the most enduring questions about freedom, culture, and identity in a connected world.