Yes but that’s her opinion, Dave. Now, there are two things here. If that opinion disgusts people, then they will turn from the paper in droves and readership speaks in the media. She’ll be booted out for that.

Same with Griffin. If his message accords with people, they’ll come to him. Otherwise, they’ll leave in droves. There’s a self-actualizing tendency here where people can be sent to Coventry.

What it doesn’t need is recourse to the big stick, just because someone dislikes the view. There’s a blogger who has said the most libellous things about me and I’ve been asked why I don’t litigate. Money and the principle – this society has gone too far down that track.

The mature way to settle something is for people to shun someone. If enough people feel that way, then he or she will feel it soon enough.

That’s the British way.
.-= jameshigham´s last blog: Ladies and gentlemen, please adjust your links and feeds =-.

I very strongly disagree. At no point in her article did Moir say that she had been prevented from saying her peace or that this was a freedom of speech issue.

No-one has suggested that she should be prevented from saying what she said. Re-read the article – it was a load of homophobic bile, implying that he died because he was gay, not that it should at least be allowed to be considered.

What people have said is that her comments were so far beyond the pale that they affect the credibility of the newspaper and, indeed, those who advertise with that newspaper.

Freedom of speech does not imply a right to a pulpit.

xD.