Hi Joe, thanks for the link. It's an interesting survey of some of the legal underpinnings of the limitations applying to the 'right' to speak freely, but the question of implications remains. The notion of 'freedom' implies no restriction, yet it is unquestionable that the Law imposes some restrictions, as your linked document makes clear.

It is those acts of speech and of course deed which go outside the bounds of the Law (exercise 'freedom') which are the most important, because they have the potential to effect change.

Mandela, Gandhi, the Suffragettes, Gerry Adams, Malcolm X, Hitler, Lenin, Wilberforce, Franklin et al, Galileo, going back and back to Jesus, Socrates, Spartacus, Julius Caesar; each and every one of these people was outside the law in their speech to some extent. Some were notably imprisoned or worse.

So what makes these people 'great' (whichever way you view the nature of that greatness in specific cases) and distinguishes their speech from more mundanely abusive or offensive rantings such as might be seen from anonymous trolls or resentful drunks - or in the formulaic rhetoric of politicians' displays and spin-doctors' cynical wittering?

Could a modern-day equivalent to one of those people arise within our great democracy and if they did, could they be effective in getting their message out? Would we, in our comfortable complacency, be any more willing to hear an uncomfortable message than the Whites of South Africa or the English landlords of Ireland or the Pharisees of ancient Judea?

Constance,

>>Sorry George, Merkel is speaking in appeasement tones which can't last. No use pretending. <<

You are right, but what else should she do, or more importantly, CAN she do?

The situation in Europe is more complicated than could be explained here, but still: In addition to the Muslim problem, Europe has its euro crisis and has become the not-very-willing participant in recent US-Russia animosities, both these factors causing centrifugal forces in the EU.

It is not Europe’s meddling in Middle East affairs that causes hundreds of thousands of refugees, mainly Muslims, coming to Europe in addition to those coming illegally on boats from Africa, and those who have been here already for a couple of generations. Not only Christians but also the non-religious majority in a post-Christian Europe cannot accept the drowning of desperate Africans in the Mediterranean or reject refugees from war-torn Syria or Afghanistan. Although all - including those who provide refuge in Catholic or Lutheran parishes - are well aware that these acts of charity contribute to Europe having to become more Islam-friendly, to put it mildly, in the future (after all it was not the Muslims who created in Europe, at least its Western parts, a religious vacuum that now Islam wants to fill in).

What is the alternative? I mean a politically workable one, not personally. Personally, the minimum requirement is to refrain from unnecessary provocation. I am neither an atheist as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists claim to be, nor a Jew, but as an expression of solidarity with the victims of the Paris massacre I would have somehow preferred the “Je suis Juif “ - identifying with the four Jewish victims who did not provoke anybody - to the “Je suis Charlie”. (It did not hurt evgen Benedict XVI to publicly resent the hurt he might have caused (although he did not formally apologize) to Muslim feelings with the sidetracking quote in his 2006 Regensburg lecture). This includes also refraining from emotional outbursts and provocations here. They do not contribute to the solution of the problem Muslims-atheists-Christians, even on a personal level

I step away for a short time and come back to find this;

"And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends."

I get that he was being deliberately offensive to make a point and I suppose the same can be said about the Charlie Hedbo staff. Well let us follow through with the exercise shall we. Just as in Australia and France there are proscribed standards of behaviour on OLO and recourse for those who feel those standards have been transgressed. Therefore I am recommending the slur that he directed at George be deleted.

Whether or not it is allowed to stand is up to our moderator. Whatever the decision I feel it will perhaps lead into another aspect of free speech, one that has only been lightly touched on in this thread.

Steelie: Therefore I am recommending the slur that he directed at George be deleted.

As it is only your particular opinion. I am against deleting Georges Post. Graham please note. My vote cancels out Steelies.

Jayb,

It's not George's post.

It's Loudmouth's.

Of course, he wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to to follow up his comments to men in real life with such an odious comment...but it's easy when you're online and out of physical reach.

Seems like a cowardly below the belt comment to me - from one man to another.

Don't know if it matches an OLO transgression though.

poirot: It's Loudmouth's. Of course, he wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to to follow up his comments to men in real life with such an odious comment...but it's easy when you're online and out of physical reach.

Are you threatening violence poirot? Hmmmm... A deletion, maybe.

My apologies George.

As it is only your particular opinion. I am against deleting Loudmouths Post. Graham please note. My vote cancels out Steelies. Well Ditto for Loudmouth.

Admitted my mistake & corrected it.