Another article today in The Telegraph about Harry’s court case with the above title. The Telegraph has been running an article a day pretty much for the last week about the existential threat to freedom of speech which both cases demonstrate. Here’s a snippet:
Just last week, in a case examining the stupid and, frankly, wicked practice of British police forces recording ‘hate crimes’ even in cases no crime of any nature has been committed, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Knowles, stated “the right to be offended” did not exist. “We live in a pluralistic society where none of us have a right to be offended by something that they hear. Freedom of expression laws are not there to protect statements such as ‘kittens are cute’ — but they are there to protect unpleasant things. Its utility lies in exposing people to things that they do not want to hear,” he said
Just last week, in a case examining the stupid and, frankly, wicked practice of British police forces recording ‘hate crimes’ even in cases no crime of any nature has been committed, the presiding judge, Mr Justice Knowles, stated “the right to be offended” did not exist.
“We live in a pluralistic society where none of us have a right to be offended by something that they hear. Freedom of expression laws are not there to protect statements such as ‘kittens are cute’ — but they are there to protect unpleasant things. Its utility lies in exposing people to things that they do not want to hear,” he said.