Well, since you asked so nicely.
You do all know that's what the western concept of free speech is base dont you?
The Western concept of free speech is not defending to the death everyone’s right to say whatever the fuck they want. It has never been this.
Free Speech means nothing more and nothing less than the fact that the government and public institutions are not allowed to censor you, or imprison or otherwise punish you, for what you say (save in particular circumstances, discussed below).
It doesn’t mean that individuals or private institutions have to listen to you. It doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to say ‘that was a stupid and bigoted comment and you should apologise’. It doesn’t mean you can’t be fired for holding opinions deemed to be unacceptable by your employer. It doesn’t mean you can’t be banned from speaking in private venues.
It offers you no absolute protection to say whatever you like without facing consequences. This has never been a concept in western society. It wasn’t even a rule at the time that Evelyn Beatrice Hall came up with that quote. It was simply a pithy phrase she used to describe a particular belief system.
Just because you think restrictions on speech work in your favour now doesnt mean they always will. Hence why you protect it at all cost, and at all times.
The idiocy of this paragraph is truly unparalleled and I can only commend you for that.
Restrictions on free speech are rife in this country. I’m not allowed to print a letter in a national newspaper falsely accusing you of kicking swans every Sunday in the park. A hate preacher isn’t allowed to stand on a soap box every Sunday and tell the gathered crowds that they should go forth and punch every member of a different faith whom they meet. I can’t incite a riot, I can’t publicly perpetrate obscenity, I can’t share government secrets and I can’t slander my boss. These are all perfectly legitimate restrictions of my right to free speech.
The right to free speech isn’t absolute. It is curtailed wherever it butts up against other people’s rights - rights to safety, rights to not be harassed, rights to not have violence incited against them, rights to be protected from gross offences to the prevailing public morality of the time. All of these rights have been deemed more important than the right to free speech. That is why your assertion that the right to free speech should be protected at all costs and at all times is so patently absurd. Would you really choose to protect a hate preacher employing his right of free speech to incite his devotees to murder children over the right of those children to not be murdered? Of course you wouldn’t.
Nobody on this thread is suggesting Widdecombe should be imprisoned for her comments. That would clearly be a violation of her right to free speech. But free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and if she says something which another person finds idiotic, offensive, narrow minded and absurd, there is no reason at all why that person shouldn’t share their view, and suggest that she should apologise. And there’s no reason why you shouldn’t think critically about what she has said and your response to it, instead of attempting to shut down any criticism of her words by an appeal to a phrase as meaningless and empty as the one you employed.