Another forgotten facet of this argument, I believe, is that generally, British society has surrendered its independence to central government over the years, probably in the main as a direct result of the Welfare State. As we all know, since the GU have not been concerned to stand up for their civil rights, these have been increasingly abrograted by Government in their own exclusive interest. As effective moronism and total disinterest in current affairs has now reached almost epidemic levels, Government feels free to dictate absolutely what is and what is not acceptable, philosophically. The media, particularly the Daily Wail, label this phenomenon generically, "The Nanny State", rather than ascribing its correct causes. :idea:

Advocates of paedophile sex are like a fart in the wind, which, at times, approaches gale force, even in liberal Holland. I have no problem with people arguing that the law should be changed, even on such delicate matters as the age of consent. The homosexual lobby have been doing this years, with ever-diminishing objections, which is regrettable. They now have equality as far as the age of consent is concerned, though some still argue for it to be even lower. A section of the Lib Dems (no surprise) advocate this, but it is a minority viewpoint, since a broad consensus has formed that thinks 16 is a fair and reasonable age, regardless of sexuality. In Holland, I believe the age of consent is lower, which perhaps explains the distasteful views of that party, but that is the business of the Dutch and for them to decide. I would hope that concerned people would be able muster decent arguments to defeat the advocates of paedophile sex, when they inevitably raise their heads here, via the homosexual lobby. Which leads me on to another point: occassionally advocates of a change in the law break the law to make their point. It is called civil disobedience and takes various forms. However, for such a thing to have an impact, it has to be public and usually involve lots of people in a show of mass public support in order to discredit the contentious law. Although advocates of homosexual law reform have used public displays of affection between consenting adults to get their pont across in the past when such things were outlawed, the younger the participants are, the greater the chance of overwhelming public revulsion. I agree with Tony: providing their is no incitement to violence people should be heard, regardless of their views. Once you begin to pick and choose, you are on sticky ground and when others begin to pick and choose, such as the so-called 'anti-fascists', you might find yourself labelled as a 'fascist' and denied your right to speak, whether through 'mob rule' or hastily enforced laws. If people want to break the law to make a point, however, whether it is climbing public buildings, selling bananas by the pound or objecting to traditional codes of moral behaviour, they should feel the full force of law when they do so. Some people will think they are martyrs, other will think them idiots or degenerates. I think they call that politics!

For example, someone who had caused a stampede in a crowded place by shouting "fire" as a joke could not expect to have their freedom of speech protected - could they? This is something that has been trotted out on numerous occasions by the idiot politicians when they are defending their efforts to gag people. Personally, I think that argument is stupid and irrelevant as would be the freedom to shout about security arrangements at airports. The ability to cause damage to the security of individuals or organisations is mandated against by statute already. It is the prerogative of the retarded to argue that it is their right to behave in whatever way they wish and not have to be concerned with the effects on others. So how does that affect free speech? Quite simply. Religions are not factually based. They are belief based. The holder of that belief should take responsibility for it and not have even the sligh-*test*-('") right to take offence if anyone disagrees with it. Neither should they expect to be given respect or latitude for that belief. All religious beliefs bind their adherents in some form or other and if that clashes with the society in which they live then those beliefs must be subjugated to that society and the religion must show respect to the society for being allowed to exist within it or it should leave. As for the plonker that shouts 'fire' in a cinema, he should be locked up and fire hosed every day for a week - maybe then it would be an act that would not be repeated.

This is what the CPS thinks according to a recent lecture. http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/nationalnews/free_expression_05_03_08.html

One of the problems with a discussion forum is that if everyone agrees there is no discussion so I try to act as 'devils advocate' from time to time. Yes, the shouting "fire" scenario is used by people throughout the world as an example of a situation where the interests of the rest of a society clearly out-weigh the interests of the idiot who wants to shout "fire". Jack's CPS article made very interesting reading and I'm actually quite encouraged by it. The speaker went to great lengths to describe what would and what wouldn't be acceptable: So, as Mr Justice Hughes emphasised in the Abu Hamza case, it is not an offence to describe Britain as a 'toilet'. Nor is it an offence to suggest that the West is corrupt and without moral conscience. But it is an offence to say that "the killing of non-Muslims is justified in any circumstances". That prosecution succeeded because this was speech which broke the law. That is also why the case against Nick Griffin FAILED after he had described Islam as "wicked, vicious faith" (quite different from Hamza).

Yes, you right about the Nick Griffin case, 'Sir' P. However, it begs the question as to why it was launched in the first place? Ultimately, it was a political decision that had nothing to do with the CPS. Which is worrying!

But for my part, I don't believe we should allow these various turnabouts and polarisations blind us to the fact that free speech and public safety are not always intrinsically opposing concerns. Perhaps they should be seen as complimentary ???? Another uneducated 'writer'! Since when did free speech and public safety issue compliments? :roll: