I think it is relevant to question Jonathan Pie's commitment to free speech when he happily accepted money and built his career at an organisation that is directly funded by one of the the world's most oppressive regimes.
As much as I might dislike breitbart they do not directly threaten or imprison opposing voices, they operate with and a based in County which allows free expression.
As I said in my original post for me the Dankula cases isn't about free speech. It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.

You can use the former to challenge the latter. I will defend the right of people all around and in Britain if needed, I'd rather we supported those people who freedom of speech is genuinely being threatened and aren't just breaking social norms and laws for a cheap laugh and a few views.

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

To Quote 'The US doesn't have what you refer to as 'norms' of course it does I'm not an expert on but if you want to test it we could go on prime time tv in the U.S and flop out my little 'ketteridge'and your little 'stirling'and see what the reactions is, either social or legal.

'I take it you also reject pardons that have been retrospectively provided.'
'
If you don't agree with that then rather obviously your opinions are actually just about this interpretation of the law agreeing with your own convictions.....rather than any rubbish about following the law'
Sorry the one position doesn't follow the other. The law derives it's basis from a democratic process and reflects the will of the people. However if these are wrong, unjust or indanger peoples personal freedoms than it is right that people use their freedom of speech to fight them.
This is really the point I've been making all along, if he breaks these social norms to better society or right injustice I would defend him, even if these imjustices were just percieved rather than actual. This man wanted to annoy his girlfiend.

As it happens I think your right about Pie, his support doesn't vaildate the arguement, neither does the support of Gervais and Baddiel. His being funded by Russia Today doesn't ivalidate his point it simple make him a hypocrite but as you say the point is the point not who is saying it.

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

You can't even get this right. The word wasn't misspelt it was simply the wrong word choice.

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

A complete non point that exists only in your own head.

Amusingly you get this completely arse faced. It's the court who claimed that 'context doesn't matter'. Dankula's whole point was that 'context does matter'....which is precisely why at the start of the video that he makes clear that it's a joke video intended to upset his girlfriend by training the dog she adores to do the most vile thing he can think of....which is a Nazi salute.

It was the people charging Dankula that said that context doesn't matter.

Errr...sorry? Give me an example of where I'm a hypocrite mate.

I'm not a free speech absolutist.....and importantly free speech has never been absolute in this country or in any country.

Free speech used to be about free except for 'incitement to violence, libel or obscenity.' These aspects had to quite rightly require to be proven.

The fact that our politicians have made 'offence' a factor in this is truly disappointing.....and many of us are genuinely envious of the American first amendment.

Who gets to decide on whether something 'causes harm'. That's what the idiot judge did here and frankly I quite happy to call him an idiot and all those that support him as idiots.

Most things can be claimed to be offensive to somebody....There's a reason why the US Constitution ruled this out and is a bastion of free speech.

When 'perception' is classed as 'harm' then society opens itself up to snowflakes and outrage culture having legal enforcement support.

No thank you.....but one day these laws will be used against your beliefs.....and when that day comes I won't support it but at least I'll know who the real hypocrites are.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Apr 2018 12.22pm)

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

After the guilty verdict last month, comedian Ricky Gervais wrote on Twitter: "A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'.

"If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in Freedom of Speech."

Tim Pool filming a video on the demonstration for Count Dankula....a demonstration the impartial BBC described as 'small'.

[Link]

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