to suggest that if you think what Clarkson said was a step too far (being polite) to complain to IPSO?

[daretodenim]

www.ipso.co.uk/complain/complaints-form/

IPSO will publicise how many complaints they receive.

If everybody who thinks what Clarkson wrote was unacceptable, even if he dislikes MM (and he's under no obligation to like her) contacts IPSO, then it sends a message. And may dissuade editors from signing of on vileness like this in future.

Worth a try, surely.

If people remain quiet, it looks like it's ok.

Complaining to IPSO is better than tweeting your opinion, because it doesn't publicise the paper or Clarkson. Both of them relish the publicity.

@Trixiefirecracker you say free speech isn't the same as hate speech.

Where do you draw the line over what is hateful and what's not? Some people think it's okay to call trans women "women" and that not doing so is hate speech.

I'd rather everyone had the chance to show the world who they are.

I would never have seen or read this article if it hadn't been for all the frothing online about it.

Clarkson will be absolutely loving every single second of it.

If he is loving people seeing his true character and his views on what he would like to see done to Meghan and having his daughter disown his views, then I feel for him.

He is one sick individual.

Clarkson's Farm helped some people see a different side to him. This has damaged his brand

Exactly, free speech is very much at risk, if we are to protect it we need to really protect it, not just the speech we agree with.

I'm with Voltaire (or who ever actually said it) on this:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Hes vile. I think the fact it was published after he had lunch with camilla makes it even worse.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I completely agree with that quote.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Publicly wishing weirdly sexualised violence on a woman who has had to endure legitimate threats from far right groups (some of which have been prosecuted) is, putting it mildly, incredibly shitty - especially as The Sun probably can include a number of far right nutters as part of its readership.

And surely freedom of speech also means the freedom to complain?

@cakeorwine the internet does not equal the public at large. I don't think he'll care. I also don't think his farm show was a bid to rehabilitate his image.

The people who 'like' JC know what he's like and know who is. I'll warrant the ones complaining never watched his shows in the first place.

Free speech also has consequences, such as the public condemnation and shaming of the writer. It was ever thus and JC will have a taste of that. Good.

I think he so overstepped what's acceptable to say. You can criticise someone without referencing public pillory and sexual shaming.

Talking about it as if it's OK because it's allegedly a TV show reference? Where do you think the TV show is referencing? It's a variation of historical practices. That we've bloody well moved on from, I would hope.

It's particularly a grossly misogynistic thing to be imagining MM naked and humiliated, the grim old perv, and on that basis alone, whatever you think of her yourself, if you're a woman you shouldn't support it.

I did this a few days ago. IPSO has received over 12,000 complaints already about the article.

Free speech means the government doesn’t lock you up or try you for what you say or write.
It doesn’t mean there are no consequences of writing something offensive.
There could be 66 million complaints about this article and free speech wouldn’t be affected at all.

Done thank you for the link.

Absolutely.

But lots of what's said on MN about the trans community is considered hugely offensive by other sections of society.

I wonder if a lot of the posters calling for his downfall would still feel the same if it was their friends being lambasted in the newspapers, with calls for their arrest and for them to lose their jobs because they've said "transwomen aren't women".

I doubt it 🤷🏻‍♀️

Really? If you were Meghan, how do you think you would feel?

With the right to free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Dickheads like Clarkson don't care about who they upset; they just want publicity.

With the right to free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Dickheads like Clarkson don't care about who they upset; they just want publicity.

And all these complaints, threads and articles are giving him exactly that.

The best consequence would be to ignore him completely.

We are not in the USA we do not have absolute freedom of speech.

Also freedom of speech is not exempt from consequences of said speech, hence why we have rules such as inciting violence/racism etc and similar ones.

Freedom of speech is not saying what you want and telling everyone else to fuck off.

When does free speech become incitement to cause violence against someone?

The propaganda against Jewish people in 1930s Germany led to them being seen as 'other'. And we all know what happened.

If someone repeatedly describes people as cockroaches who need exterminating, who repeatedly describes a politician as an 'immigrant lover who is a traitor' - and someone is radicalised by those words, is there a problem?

Thank you op as I have just complained for the first time ever using your screenshot. How can he be shocked that its offensive is beyond me. He's talking like he didn't write it.

There free speech and there’s hate speech as outlined below, section 4 of the public order act.
free speech does not mean anyone can go around being verbally abusive towards anyone else and get away with it by calling it free speech.

Free speech “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." We don't have completely unfettered free speech in the UK, nor should we.

In any case, just because Clarkson is allowed to have his opinion does not mean his is entitled to a platform for it. Newspapers are not obliged to print awful opinions, nor are readers - customers - are obliged tolerate them. They can tell a newspaper that it's content is offensive and unacceptable.

Seriously, some of you would fight "to the death" for someone's right to publicly wish violence and degradation on an innocent woman? Bloody hell.

Also freedom of speech is not exempt from consequences of said speech, hence why we have rules such as inciting violence/racism etc and similar ones.

I don't disagree.

But there are lots of opinions on MN that are considered hugely offensive by other sections of society, and I'm wondering whether all the posters complaining here would be as happy if thousands of people complained about their opinions.

If they said "transwomen should be stripped naked and have shit thrown at them and they are worse than child murderers", then there might be an issue.

It is easy to radicalise feelings against a group at the moment. The Daily Mail is very good at that. Repeated negative headlines about a group.

And then acting all surprised if someone targets them and questions about 'but how could they have been radicalised'

This is not a theoretical opinion that is causing offence, it was hate speech towards a woman who has spoken about the personal distress hate speech against her has already caused.

Done.
Thank you.

I'm shocked that many in this largely female forum don't seem to think there's any problem with mysogyny and inciting violence towards a woman.

"I'm just quoting something.." - that's the sort of pathetic excuse I'd find stupid and unacceptable from my Year 8s.