Free Speech

The author’s own politicised speech norms are obvious but never reflected upon

The right to be offensive should be protected, not dismissed

The offer of consensual conversation should never be a crime

The state is not just punishing what is said but what is inferred

The case against social media is both hysterical and hypocritical

The connotations of words can depend on their context, numpties

The law on blasphemy is toxic: It protects free speech until you provoke others to use force.

Laws have been tightened, censorship powers expanded, and speech-related prosecutions pursued

But why did it take the American VP to draw attention to the criminalisation of pro-life thought?