Uncle Ralph
2008-06-07 19:36:36
In all the chat about the boy with the “cult” placard, I’ve yet to see any reference to the Redmond-Bate case of 1999 or any explanation of how the former squares with the statement of Lord Justice Sedley in that case that:
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
Anyone familiar with British jurisprudence care to take a shot at sorting this out?
