Jeri, not wishing to be pedantic but when I said "Your theory is wrong" I was responding to your line -

I said this before, but if you read the Wiki I linked to above, it backs up my theory: the UK has a completely different take on "free speech"

So how am I suppose to know it is not your theory when you say it is? Knowing you from past posts I know you would not have railed at my saying it was your theory just to make my argument look ridiculous so I assume it was in error that you said it was.

Anyway, back to the main point, squeezer has the right of it and says it better than I could so, yes, that is what I was saying. Both our lands have freedom of speech. We both have laws governing what is deemed beyond the pale. There is very little, if any, difference in them.

Look at LadyJeans post above (Thanks LJ). Our extreme organisations have the right to hold rallies and demonstrations as well. The hate speech could not be published as well. No difference. Also, you missed one vital section of what I said when you replied that people were allowed to say those things. I asked if they are the allowed to say them WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS. They are allowed to say them, and make themselves look like pratts here as well, but, just like in your land, if the law deems it to be offensive to the public, action can be taken where required. The key thing here is common sense.

Am I right in thinking you are a moderator on here? Surely then you can understand the difference between freedom of speech and the freedom to hurt other people. It's just like that in real life. We are both lucky enough to be able to say whatever we want. We are also both sensible enough to know when we should not say it. Sadly, some people don't understand that and it is those cases where the law, or the moderator, will take action.

Cheers

DtG