IF FREE SPEECH were only for me and not for thee, it would be a pretty pale imitation of the real thing, don’t you agree? If we were only permitted to speak out on issues that our lords and masters considered suitable, this would not, in fact, be free speech at all; it would be unfreedom of speech.

Which appears to be what we have under the Communications Act 2003, where advertising “which is directed to a political end” is not allowed in this country. If you were concerned, as Animal Defenders International is today, about the use of primates in circuses, you might pool your cash and make a TV ad to get the message out. But this is verboten. Thus it is now challenging the law in the High Court as being incompatible with the Human Rights Act under Article 10, which defends free speech. It would be a strange law indeed that allowed PG Tips to plaster chimpanzees all over the airwaves but did not allow someone to campaign against such perceived cruelty — but that is the way we are ruled now.

Naturally there are thousands of groups awaiting the outcome of the case as they wish to press their views upon us. Which is precisely as it should be, of course: free speech means precisely that;, that subject to libel and incitement to violence you are free to propound your ideas, however crackpot or misguided, to all and sundry.

What is even more absurd is the general agreement that party political advertising, or any single-issue advertising during an election, should be banned. This negates completely the purpose of that freedom. As is the case with those other freedoms so unfashionable in current political circles (habeas corpus, jury trial, double jeopardy) that are so misunderstood. They are not there to protect criminals from righteous justice; they are there to protect the innocent from unrighteous justice inflicted by the powerful. To protect us from them.

So with freedom of speech: an election is not the time to limit it; it is the very moment that it is most valuable. Yes, there would indeed be a cacophony, a babble, but that is us, the voice of the people, and we should have the right to broadcast it exactly as far as our desires and wallets will take us. Freedom of speech must include the right to scream our opinions at politicians: that’s the whole point, isn’t it?