@ Logicalman and the 'captain'

There are 'honest' limits and 'dishonest' limits.

Expression of an OPINION should be quite clear to honest grownups, and will not be confused with participation in violent ACTIONS.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is NOT a "natural limit" on freedom of speech.  On the contrary, the word "fire" does not express an "opinion".  If there is a real fire then it becomes a useful act.  If there is no fire, then it is an attempt (an action, not an opinion) to create a 'disturbance' or worse, and should be properly punishable by law.   

One cannot maintain genuine democracy over time and allow the powers-of-the-day to selectively determine which opinions are for the "common good" and which are not.  That is the road to 'orthodoxy' and to nondemocracy.   The present 'multicul' predicament in Europe is precisely the result of shutting up early critical voices (several decades ago) of naive-left immigration policies.   

I agree with the 'captain' that individual liberties need to be 'constrained' (or "sacrificed") to some extent for the common good.  That is always the case, and is a natural result of the moral linkage of rights-with-duties.  But, criminalising opinions or 'speech' is never a good idea, if one wants to preserve democracy and 'rule of law' (instead of 'rule of men', i.e. the opinions of the powerful-of-the-day).  Only actions should be subject to criminal law, not opinions. A democratic society protects its citizens from the (violent) actions of others, not from unorthodox 'opinions' which might undermine ruling orthodoxies. Societies that ban critical (unorthodox) thought/opinions will fossilise and cannot adjust to changing circumstances. Arabia is the prime example, and Eurabia is following the same road.

Unless one is an anarchist of the libertarian variety, one accepts some degree of communitarianism. One's individual rights and freedoms go hand in hand with responsibility and obligation to one's community. Until a human being can conceive itself immaculately without the assistance of parents and its community, represented by nurses, doctors, hospitals, etc., and independently survive during its pre-teen years, human beings are born into obligation - they must learn to provide for themselves, contribute to their communities, and obey the laws of the latter. Therefore, there is some room for the 'greater good.' That greater good can range from physically defending one's community to not inciting others to destroy it. And the greater good can expand and contract f.e. it is not contradictory for one to be nationalistic and a liberal democrat in homogenous Japan, however, nationalism and liberal democracy in Western Europe are opposed due to the presence of foreigners. If the European community of nations is worth keeping, than democracy and personal rights and freedoms must be sacrificed to a reasonable extent; if they are worthless, as the socialists believe, than liberal democracts have no right to whine about Muslims.

@ Logicalman

It would appear that you do not really believe in freedom of opinion/expression.  If it is any consolation, neither do most of those mosque-goers either.   All unhappy together, nondemocratic 'immigrants' and nondemocratic locals? 

The problem with many muslims is not that they speak their mind. Be glad that they do, so one can know how/what they think.  The problem lies elsewhere........ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k&NR

Youtube has complete series of reportage.  Search for "uncover mosque"

What else is needed as proof for taking them to court for hate-spreading, discrimination, conspiracy, sedition, and outright fascism?  They do enforce laws, don't they?

 One good thing about Internet is that eventually truths get out.

Upon examination of the above photo, I ask myself, "are these the faces of the future?" Are those individuals in the photo truly representative of the United Kingdom or its constituent peoples? According to Chancellor Gordon Brown - who neither acknowledges that England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland are in fact nations, and whom regards British values to be comprised purely of "a commitment to liberty for all, a commitment to social responsibility shown by all, and a commitment to fairness to all," as opposed to ethnicity (is this rhetoric not common to all societies?) - they are, namely:

1. Ugly! A pudgy White nerd with glasses with appears incapable of either reproductive activity, or sacrifice for or defense of his country
2. Ugly! A fat Muslim woman with a headscarf and (again) with glasses, who again is not the most eligible candidate for procreation
3. Ugly! A South Asian man with an obvious axe to grind
4. Ugly! A bored bald Black man who would rather rob or rape someone than hold vigil with a silly sign

Whenever photos of leftist rallies are taken, they always seem to include the ugly and those with a chip on their shoulder: the obese, the slobs, the poor dressers, all those who feel the world owes them something greater than that which the hardworking have earned for themselves and/or their families. I am sorry to say that the only rallies featuring well-dressed, good-looking people and exclusively European people were those in the 1930s and 1940s...

David Cameron is listed among a group of prominent politicians and personalities claimed by Unite against Fascism [UAF] as supporters.

Unless he states otherwise it must be assumed that he backs this group's attempt to have Simone Clarke sacked.

The mainstream media in Britain currently show not the slightest interest in informing the public of this fact.

The UAF published supporters list is headed by London mayor Ken Livingstone, its chair whose race adviser Lee Jasper also chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism initiated the witch-hunt against the ballerina.

There are now increasing calls for members of the BNP to be sacked from their jobs. This view has been given support by Trevor Phillips former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality.

The UAF supporters list currently contains over 50 MPs, nine MEPs, fifteen trade union leaders including TUC general secretary Brendan Barber, human rights lawyer Louise Christian and even Institute of Employment Rights director Carolyn Jones. For how long this will remain the case is a matter of some significance.

How do they dare. If you don't like democracy, try Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia etc.