Freedom of speech just died.

The judge should be jailed for attempting to kill it.

Jon Silverman a BBC Legal Analyst has written up a piece on this. Linky

I feel that somebody inciting to kill outside somebody's home certainly exceeds any freedom of speech but in the abstract and miles away I'm not so sure.

It would have to be a very direct and plausible threat.

Interesting opinion piece.

I really do worry though about this punishment of fantasies and theories and protest... I think we crossed the line years ago.

I can see both sides of this argument. Those convicted would have scant regard for my freedom of expression were they in any position of power, and as such I don't have much sympathy for them.

Freedom of speech is a precious thing, and once we start eroding it we risk heading off down a slippery slope.

I suppose the second argument takes precedence.

The concept of legislating against an idea or a thought is quite allarming ...

Maybe some corrupt George Orwell reading politician dreamed up that one ....

Legislation against ideas and thoughts is indeed alarming. On the other hand I don't want to see white supremacists, (have you ever seen a group of people less supreme?), Islamic extremists who want to bring an end to democracy and replace it with the law of their imaginary friend, or any other group spewing out their hatred on our streets.

I am questioning myself even as I write this. I realise the risks of curbing people's rights to express their opinions, but I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you preach to bring down democracy and human rights, do you have a right to enjoy all its benefits? I would say no, but I could be wrong and would be interested in hearing other opinions.

And as for the frenzied groups who love burning flags, you are not burning my flag. You are burning yours. You bought it. Idiots!

All the mass immigration has changed the face of Britain,for both good and bad.
Part of the bad side has been the lack of respect for British traditions of democracy and free speech,especially from a vocal minority amongst these immigrants families.
After the 2005 bombings we're now less tolerant of them,and of course the more publicity they get,well the more radical they'll become to keep the bandwagon rolling.
With mass communications you do have to do something to curb calls for violence.Afterall only a few people will see some jackass screaming from speaker's corner in Hyde park,but with Satellite TV,and the net millions will see these bad things almost as they happen.
Inciting violence onto others is not freedom of speech,but neither were these sentences a just responce.This matter needs thought,and proper thought for a practical way to handle it,not bigitory,or at the other extreme political correctness.

In Britain it is very easy to "talk beteewn the lines".

There are phrases that my audience will fully comprehend with no need for me to actually mention "Let's kill those who are different".

For somebody to be successfully prosecuted they must have been either a bit dim or a complete nutter.

Once again we do seem to be dealing with half a story, what the person's actually said is missing.

Anthony wrote:
Legislation against ideas and thoughts is indeed alarming. On the other hand I don't want to see white supremacists, (have you ever seen a group of people less supreme?), Islamic extremists who want to bring an end to democracy and replace it with the law of their imaginary friend, or any other group spewing out their hatred on our streets.

I am questioning myself even as I write this. I realise the risks of curbing people's rights to express their opinions, but I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you preach to bring down democracy and human rights, do you have a right to enjoy all its benefits? I would say no, but I could be wrong and would be interested in hearing other opinions.

And as for the frenzied groups who love burning flags, you are not burning my flag. You are burning yours. You bought it. Idiots!

I agree with what you say and I would not support any calls for violence under any circumstances but I beleive that legislation should only be used if there is a direct threat to a person or group of people.

How many times have we heard the call from compassionate caring upright individuals who advocate castrating paedophiles and hanging murderers ? Certainly they are suggesting violent action against minority groups, should they be prosecuted ?

The point you make there is a good one, Phil. I lose respect for anyone who advocates such forms of punishment.

Maybe there is a distinction though between someone advocating the castration or hanging of criminals, however distasteful I find that, and groups calling for the mass destruction of those they disagree with. The former are calling for a change in the law through the existing democratic process, whilst the latter are after something quite different.

Nonetheless your point illustrates the risks we take once the state starts making decisions about what we are allowed to think. I am still to be totally convinced either way.