The far-right, for example, don't believe in democracy/free speech once they are in power, as history has taught us, though they are quite happy to abuse it to satisfy their ambitions. So on that score they are no different in thinking to salafists so Legals question is prudent.

Do you think both should be blocked, one of them, or neither and total free speech should win the day?

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

The term 'free speech' has never meant absolutist speech.

It never has....for example you have never...to my knowledge been able to call for the murder of people or groups....shouting fire in a crowded space with reduced exits for example.

We have laws on libel and while not always accessible to all for the most part these are practical laws that allow for sensible redress. However, Kenbarr mentioned problems with this issue and it's definitely not perfect in society.

We have Salafist mosques in this country and while I am pretty anti socially conservative Islam and believe policy should reflect that until such time that action is taken against it I see no issues with speech that falls within our laws....Salafist or atheist or whatever.

I most definitely have a issue with the new 'hate speech' laws and further restrictions on social media that are being pushed for by people such as Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jan 2018 11.28am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The communist party are allowed to exist. Hell you have Marxists in the Labour party claiming they are the centre ground.

It's all wrapped up with calling for violence for me.

I don't agree with groups calling for ethno-states but this attitude that they are somehow untouchable just makes me laugh. Israel is a form of ethno state and we have an embassy there and helped create it. In fact there are lots of countries that are in effect ethno states.

The marketplace of ideas....if allowed to operate always decides upon the popularity of ideas......hell, progressivism is only on top now because it was allowed to gain traction.

Now it's there, it's acolytes in the media and political world seek to abolish those against it....which is completely hypocritical.

However, I myself am hypocritical on this matter when it comes to Islam, which I view as an exception to these conditions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jan 2018 12.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course back when they were a 'concern' they were infiltrated by MI-5 and members were blacklisted etc - so they weren't exactly allowed to 'exist freely' and rightly so. They were a security threat to be considered.

The same was true of the SWP, CND and Militant (and the trade unions).

Same should apply to the far right - Whilst they tred carefully along the line of the law, they should be tolerated - but we should consider them a risk and threat in the same way we did the far left during the cold war.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You can say what you like.

Whatever the outcome, he won't be responsible for as many deaths as Tony Blair.

When I say allowed to exist....I mean allowed to express a view...as in the discussion we were having.

As for 'Were' a threat? It's understood that when we talk about far left and far right we are covering a huge amount of ground. The groups therein have differing implications for democracy.

But essentially I agree that opinions that don't call for physical violence and knowingly libel others aren't the business of the state.

Though

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)