@Peter Vanderheyden:

Kudos to you!

I might add that your support of resticted speech could be attainable if they fell under the "clear and present danger" doctrine in the US. That makes sense, and I anticipate that it could be used against imams in mosques who exhort their followers to do violence to others.

Your change of heart (and mind) demonstrates that you have not abandoned reason like many others on the Left have.

Again, congrats!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@ pvdh

Welcome aboard.  I have always 'known' (in the sense of suspected) that you were smart and capable of 'progressing'.  Free speech is always under threat from both the left and the right.  It does not separate right from left, rather it separates genuine 'democrats' from intolerants.  Two comments.

1) 'Free speech' should be seen as freedom of POLITICAL speech.  This means that, in any particular circumstances any restrictions on 'speech' should be based on 'immediate practical' reasons (for instance, maintaining good order at a particular event, like a church service or a celebration or whatever) but NEVER based  on political or ideological reasons (i.e. in order to silence opposition or to ban opinions from the public sphere).  

2) Freedom of political speech does enable societies to "change" and progress.  However, it generally does NOT promote "consensus and convergence".   In fact, consensus and (forced) convergence are typical for societies where there is not freedom of political speech, e.g. like the muslim world or China.  The purpose of freedom of political speech is precisely to constantly 'question' the prevailing 'consensus of opinions' in society. Without it, self-criticism becomes impossible for most people. The ultimate goal of society should NOT be to seek "consensus and convergence", far from it, but rather to make individual freedom possible.  But, true 'freedom' cannot be divorced from responsibility.  Societal restrictions should be geared towards ensuring the linkage between rights and duties for individuals, they should not be geared at creating "consensus and convergence".  The goal should be responsible freedom (with individual consequences for irresponsible behavior), and NOT groupthink (or "convergence").     

Lost opportunity:
 
If only this story had broken last October/November.We Brits could have lobbied vigorously for the immediate release of this song (see link) and made it Britain's all time best selling Christmas #1.
 
Think about it.The word "Christmas" actually mentioned at Christmas,with the added bonus of a porcine protest against the antics of the pc brigade.
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUELu8o5KJg
 
 

I’m leftist, in the most genuine meaning of the word. Until now I was in favor of some restriction on the right of free speech. Indeed, with the Second World War in mind, I thought it was wisdom to ban speech aimed at spreading violence and hatred against people on grounds of their religion, skin color or ethnical roots. That it could be used against imams turning young Muslims into terrorists, was surely one of the major plusses. It was clearly a lesser evil then the pogroms that could result from hate speech. Given our grown up democracy, I was sure we could handle this weapon with restriction and wisdom.
I’ve been proven wrong.
Increasingly, a ban on free speech is being used for “offending” reasons.. In doing so, we are depraving our society from one of its most important tools for creating change, consensus, and convergence. This is taking a very dangerous direction. Where does “do not offend” stop? Every opposite meaning can be interpreted as “offending.” I’ve got to join Marcfrans on this: free speech is a very basic ground right. You just can’t mess with it. It’s everything or nothing. Let me join your ranks on this one. Stop the restriction on free speech in Europe now!

Excuse me but how long have Jews lived in the UK? And how many Jews
live in the UK now and in the past? Jews also are opposed to eating
pork. The question of the 3 little pigs was never raised in relation to
the Jewish ban on pork. This is nothing but anti -Semitic previous Jew
hating on the part of the UK. I think the Israeli government should
recall their ambassador in protest or at least demand that
Cheese-Farfel Latkes, Chopped Liver and Chicken Soup be named the
national foods of the UK.

And I also see  a contemptuous government  flipping you the bird.   
At some point, something is going to have to give.

You don't see evidence of British people who are disgusted with this? Atlanticist911 is one. If you read the post which quoted the article by Fraser and go to the direct link, you will find a myriad of comments by angry Britons who are agree that their country and their government has descended to idiocy.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

I want to believe you, all I'm lacking is evidence

As for the doom, it's meant to be a kick in the pants. Watching Britain capitulate to this nonsense is beyond belief. For crying out loud, take back your country!

I wouldn't pronounce it "all over" for the Brits yet.  Many there are fed up with this kind of garbage and we have yet to see the outcome of all this.

Secondly, these folks need encouragement, not prophecies of doom. 

On another note, wonder if a black market for fairy tales involving pigs is going to develop?
 
 
 
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

If Britain chooses to make a laughingstock of itself, I must respect their sovereign right to do so.

Perhaps EU membership might not be so bad after all. Brussels just might have spared Britons this humiliation.