This is all well and good. The article and the overall support it is getting seems all well and good, but what happens when free speech is used for something most would find objectional?

For example; extreme pornography? Such things convey ideas that most people may find abhorrent, but there is no credible evidence that they cause harm. So would you defend the right to say anything, given that it causes no harm, no matter how much you may personally dislike it?

Or are the 'censors' right, should there be limits to such basic freedoms? If so who is to decide what those limits are and why?

My own opinion is that any attack on free speech is an attack on ideas and that is unacceptable. As long as you do not directly incite harm or harm others in the creation of your message, then no matter how much I may despise what you say, I will defend your right to say it.

SteveMD, Salford,

Will Mr Slapper please give the legal definition of hatred in the context of the legislation?

It seems to me that the word is too loosely used in that if one disagrees or even despises a belief or lifestyle choice one is accused of "hatred" when the opinion is simply disagreement. Does not hatred impy a desire or incitement to physically harm?

The word "offence" is properly narrowly defined as a legal wrong, i.e., against the law - and not simply that someone's feelings are hurt which is how offence is currently being misused.

Statements of truth must not be treated as offensive or as hatred or as a phobia [irrational fear] no matter how much such truth may be painful for someone/group to hear.

The current failure in the media to precisely define and use words correctly is the primary cause of the current ability of some individuals, faith groups, etc., to wrongly bully and intimidate others. The Times used to have a glossary attached to the website. Bring it back!

Smith, Kent,

thank god for someone out there that,at last is airing opinions that a lot of us have been thinking for a very long time - -it is the religious braindead that throughout history - -including today - -that have caused such misery in a world ,where for any happiness to exist ,needs us all to pull together--religion -is an escape (from having to think)-not an answer.

john radford, lincoln, uk

It is plain to see in this and many other such debates that the British public is now both wise to the inequality with which they are governed when compared to minorities but also that they are now becoming very angry about the situation.

You can only prod a sleeping Lion for so long and get away with it.

i only hope that our vile politicians are first to feel our rage..

Geoff M, London, England

Ban religion, that way we can save the planet by reducing all this hot air.

Evan Owen, Harlech, Gwynedd

FREE SPEECH trumps religious/mythology-based dogma. Three cheers!!!

HOWEVER the big test is yet to come...ISLAM
Let's see if the courts/authorities (West Midlands Police, CPS, PC storm troopers etc.) will stand
as stalwart in defence of free speech when ISLAM is the target of satire.

Jennifer Daly, West Hampstead, NW6,

A wise law? Britain must be Mars...

As a white, Roman Catholic American, I find the banning of any kind of speech, short of a physical threat or the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater", very distressing. If someone wishes to hurl racial epithets at me or say my country should be bombed, call me a Papist monkey or whatever comes to mind; I would not like it, but i would not dream of banning it. Do you think that Britain is a more enlightened place now that people must mask their prejudices? I don't think so. Idiocy is like mold, the more you allow it into the daylight, the quicker it seems to shrivel up and die.

Gerald Joyce, Chicago, USA

The fact is that criticising Christianity does not get
your throat cut. Criticizing Islam does. Is Islam
a special exception to the rule of free speech?

Mellon, London,

of course in a 'free' country freedom of speech should be guaranteed and any one should be able to pass comment on any subject, providing the faith that your vilifying is christanity to the exclusion of all others, if not sit back and wait the the police arrive.

stephen baron, leith, tasmania

As I understand it, the High Court refused the protect the Christians because there was no danger that Christians would riot.

We're not talking about free speech. We're talking about whether a minority unpopular with the establishment may be freely insulted and demonised, while other groups enjoy protection from any negative comment whatever.

In the age of PC and 'hate legislation', designed specifically to ensure that various things cannot be said, it seems ridiculous to make these general claims for freedom of speech only when insult to the Christians is the issue, and ignore the matter on other occasions.

We should have the freedom to speak that we had 30 years ago. But claiming "it's a free country" when it manifestly is not, as an excuse for a bit of minority-bashing, is wrong.

Roger Pearse, Ipswich,

George Galloway MP has said recently that free speech is not something that should be used freely. He stated that the BNP for example should not be allowed it. However, George used his position to give his support the IRA. Now it would seem that George is against any 'controversial' people getting a voice unless it suits him. You either have free speech in politics or you dont - there are no a la carte choices. Like or hate 'extreme' groups they must have a right to free speech. It is then up to the people of this country to decide if those views are rediculous or sensible.

john, Dumbarton, UK

The mood of the country, and indeed, of almost all the European nations, is you can say nasty things about Christianity but no way you can touch Islam. How ridiculous!

James Wong, Macau,

What about the laws against apostasy, that I understand still exist in some countries? Now that is a serious obstacle to freedom of belief and expression. In some cases this is an offence punishable by death (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and, possibly, Afghanistan)

rick, london,

“contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter” relating only to God, Jesus Christ, the bible or the beliefs of the Church of England "

So where does that leave people who deny Jesus' status as the son of God.

A strict interpretation would mean that all moslems, jews, mormons etc would be guilty. As guilty as a christian teacher naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

Which just goes to show how ridiculous the entire concept of blasphemy is unless we wish to have a world divided strictly along religious lines.

nick, reading,

The show referred to did not make any attempt to present a particular set of religious views or to genuinely criticise Christianity - it simply set out to mock, revile and denigrate the Christian faith in the hope of making some money for the 'theatre people' involved. Showing it on TV was NOT part of a sensible debate.

The real offense is opened up when Christians preach the truth of the Gospel - that is, if you do not repent of your sins and believe in Jesus Christ you will spend eternity in hell. (Mark 1:15)

Quoting Scripture and preaching true Christianity, as above, is more likely to get the courts interested than foul and disgusting peversions pretending to be a 'faith statement'.

Bishop Dominic Stockford, Teddington, Middlesex

A hypocritical article: the author must know that the CHILL FACTOR now surrounds the race relations industry's successful campaign to get incitement to hatred legislation through. People are now scared of the penumbra of the law, and so the BBC will not commission any programme mocking Islam at all - Mohammed will always be 'the prophet' although few westerners think he is more than a successful warlord.
Why did the Barbican cut Marlowe's play to avoid comment on Mohammedanism? Fear, the chill factor.
Mr Slapper - was this a disingenuous article, or do you need to get a little more?
You have sold the pass on what you purport to uphold. Classic political correctness.

Jed, Oxford, UK

But there is now NOT a free market - the state and politically correct lawyers have distorted it fiercely. It's OK to do a Life of Brian - a life of Mohammed? Do us a favour. The whole point of combining race and religion in this legislation was to stop free criticism of Islam, that was the campaign behind it.

Aya, Dalston, UK

I must just point out to Professor Slapper that the word "evangelist" refers to "someone who seeks to evangelize". What I am sure he meant in his opening sentence is an "evangelical", which refers to "someone who holds a particular set of theological views".

It is a common mistake.

Revd John Richardson, Elsenham, UK