I think when you get down to it, this is another example of 'Ratbag Rules'.
It seems more and more legislation these days is directed to catching or restricting that 1 ratbag in a thousand, at the cost of restricting the freedoms of the other 999.
Could this be just another example of the inevitable disadvantages of overcrowding?

Observations for all.
I don't disagree with RStuart in idealistic principal.

My concern can be clearly seen in what RStuart said

>>"My championing free speech is purely selfish. Its about my right to listen to what he says, and make up my own mind".<<

and then reversing what Grim said

>>"legislation these days is directed to catching or restricting that 1 ratbag in a thousand, at the cost of restricting the freedoms of the other 999."<<

i.e. Legislation is directed in protecting 800 people who will believe that 1 ratbag and 600 WILL and the rest MIGHT act on it. Be that aggressively or those with a latent undercurrent waiting for a trigger, that 1 ratbag.

I have no doubt that Toben's rot will strike a chord with the right wing undereducated, under-skilled and over-emotional scape goaters.
It will encourage/justify in their minds their antisocial views and corresponding attitudes and behaviour.

I have no doubt about the overall good will of people as a whole it's their thinking skills their worry me. Simply look at what rates on TV.

I also wonder if Toben's obvious rot and his/our FOS isn't being used as a stalking horse for some to open up prejudicial broadsides on Muslims in general.

Steven has a history of raising Toben specifically and bias in the Israeli/Palestinian context. Few believe Toben but many are inclined to believe Islam/Muslims are at least potentially more evil (Sic)...this irrational perspective is emotional but would help Israel in its PR war.

I was a bit torn in my opinion on this at first but in the end I think that Free Speech has indeed proven that it really does have the benefits of shining a light on the truth. This conspiracy theory put up by Frederick Tobin as the truth and subsequently being shown for the utter delusion that it is by Four Corners has probably done more to make people look a bit harder before jumping to conclusions.
So instead of inciting trouble as he no doubt intended it has been a learning curve for those people who accepted it blindly. An example of how free speech does indeed reveal the truth by allowing people to speak freely what other people may also be thinking so that it can be brought out into the open and debated thus revealing the errors in thinking.

Having come down in the end on the side of free speech I still think that there was an intention to stir up trouble between the Moslems, and the British Authorities and the Jews by Frederick Tobin. If it had succeeded in causing another terrorist attack as it may well have by inciting hostility in the Moslem population then it fits the criteria for publishing inflammatory material. Note that he used a Moslem name when publishing, to make the Moslems think he was their friend. This also suggests an ulterior motive.
Herein lay my dilemma when trying to decide about this. The fact that it turned out to be beneficial but it could also have just as easily provoked violence in those Moslem fundamentalists who believed it to be true

Sharkfin wrote: Herein lay my dilemma when trying to decide about this. The fact that it turned out to be beneficial but it could also have just as easily provoked violence in those Moslem fundamentalists who believed it to be true.

If we allow free speech the persuasive liar, the unscrupulous demagogue, the insidious racist and other destroyers may appeal to enough people to destroy freedom and tyrannise the population. It's a risky business. If we ban free speech we have transformed the risk of losing freedom to a certainty.

To lower the risk of losing freedom education should promote critical thinking and encourage the questioning of authority whatever the source. There are many in our society who oppose such questioning. The opposition may be in the education business, the religion business, the advertising business, the government business, the military-industrial business or any other business that wants reliable, unquestioning customers. We must recognise the opposition to keep a free society.

Hear Hear, Sharkfin.
Examinator, I can't believe you have such a low opinion of Humanity. Clearly, 80% of the population is not rushing around hoping for the opportunity to shake Tobin's hand, or 60% throwing Molotov cocktails at Jews (at least, not in this country, or because of Tobin's rants). The main response I have seen is: "what an asshole!"
I don't feel the need to be 'protected', nor do I feel qualified to protect others.
I have never censored or even monitored my daughters' internet activities. If they are interested in naughty bits, it's probably better they find out at home, than behind the girls toilets.
When they come across a view they don't understand, or which bothers them, they have never hesitated to talk to us about it.

examinator: "I have no doubt that Toben's rot will strike a chord with the right wing undereducated, under-skilled and over-emotional scape goaters. It will encourage/justify in their minds their antisocial views and corresponding attitudes and behaviour."

I don't recall seeing the usual pro-censorship argument put so brazenly. But in the end, it always ends up at this.

"We, the elites, can see straight through these lies. But the common man can not trusted to do the same. Therefore we must protect him. We must filter speech, so his only sees our version of the truth."