cods wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2015 at 11:06pm:

FoS does not mean that others have to agree with you or that they cannot vehemently oppose and ridicule your view.


Progressives and Muslims want you to shut up or they will shut you up, one way (PC) or another (bullets).
http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/oxford-abortion-and-the-c...

The upside to that article, it highlights the contradictions from BOTH sides of the debate, but not just about Freedom of Speech (and/or the perceived need for responsible speech), but it also touches on Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression.

The practical upshot, there is no simple one size fits all solution, hell, it isn't even an all or nothing argument.

Perhaps one day our species will mature and this will all make sense...

A British court has affirmed a governmental decision to ban American conservative and pro-Israel activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from visiting the United Kingdom.

The two wrote that the decision reflects the nation’s “descent into authoritarianism” and a “suicidal path of appeasement of Islamic jihadists and supremacists.”

Spencer, who directs Jihad Watch, and Geller, who blogs at Atlas Shrugs, both advocate for Israel and American support for Israel. They write regularly on Islamic terrorism and had been invited to speak at a freedom protest in the U.K.

However, the British government, utilizing a letter from an unidentified official in its Foreign and Commonwealth Office that cited the pair’s “pro-Israeli views,” banned them even before they had decided whether to attend the event.

The British government had been advised by an investigator assigned to the case that, among other things, “Pamela Geller’s outspoken support for Israel may also attract pro-Palestinian groups to attend, further complicating the policing operation on the ground and making it harder to keep opposing groups apart.”

In an article Thursday co-authored by Geller and Spencer, they said the British Court of Appeal has affirmed their ban.

“The key element of its decision is its emphasis on the fact that ‘this was a public order case where the police had advised that significant public disorder and serious violence might ensue from the proposed visit,’” they explained.

“In writing that judgment, Lord Justice Tomlinson (with whom Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Floyd agree) has only made it clear that the British government has decided to set aside established law and the freedom of speech in order to appease violent Muslims,” they wrote.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books – featured at the WND Superstore

Authorities infringing on speech rights in fear of a negative reaction has been called a “heckler’s veto” in the U.S.

A case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding students at a California high school who were ordered to remove images of the American flag on a Mexican holiday. In another case that more directly relates to the U.K. ban, Christian activists at an Arab festival near Detroit were told to leave public areas because Muslims at the festival might react to them with violence.

Regarding the ban, Spencer and Geller wrote: “Will the British government now ban Jews from the country so as to ‘prevent public disorder,’ since the presence of Jews has been shown all too often to upset some Muslims and cause them to riot? The judgment permits such a Nazi approach.”

They continued: “This dismissal of our appeal sets the precedent that those whose speech is unpopular with the British government can be banned from the country. It strikes what could be a fatal blow to the very heart of the doctrine of the freedom of speech: that speech that is unpopular, and may even be offensive to some must be protected, as a safeguard against tyranny. Offensive speech is permissible even in British law, which the British Court of Appeal ignored in order to appease the government.

“Our appeal never had a chance of being considered fairly on its merits. Rather than rule on our case on the basis of established British laws in a fair manner, Judges Tomlinson, Patten and Floyd moved the goalposts and disregarded core British principles in order to uphold our exclusion,” the two wrote.

UK government bans rabid US anti-islamists on the grounds of threat to public order. These 2 are lightning rods for opposing forces.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_330_36873.php

Quote:

“The key element of its decision is its emphasis on the fact that ‘this was a public order case where the police had advised that significant public disorder and serious violence might ensue from the proposed visit,’” they explained.