Well, about bloody time-

Bl4ckGryph0n

Enjoy the 'win' don't spend it all at once.

The reality is though, that you are redefining what free speech means, as such there is no point in my opinion in further discussion as we will simply argue that white is black and vice versa.

EarthRod

Anyone can stand outside Westminster across the street and shout out what you want government to do, but of course nobody takes any notice except maybe a policeman or two.

That's free speech.

Another way, is to 'buy' your way into Westminster and lobby what you want government to do with a group of MPs who will listen to what you have to say.

That's paid-for speech.

Spot the difference (in a political sense), but note the agenda is the same.

krish

But very often with the rent-a-gobs they're not expressing their genuine opinions but maintaining their lucrative brand playing a character. Free speech is irrelevant there.

Bl4ckGryph0n

And? So what? If someone is willing to pay for that who are you to determine we should be able to listen to that or not? So yes it is totally relevant when you make remarks that you want them to dispense with them.

krish

No it's not - it's just an editorial idea. The media producers themselves are the only ones deciding who we should be able to listen to ... they are using one rent-a-gob at the opportunity cost of someone else, if anything they are constantly controlling who speaks, which makes it null and void as free speech

Bl4ckGryph0n

Hence I already agreed that technically it is not. They are using who they want on a panel to further their ratings and income, absolutely. However, if someone isn't popular they wouldn't get a spot. So I disagree about the loss of opportunity cost for someone else, that someone else need to work hard in getting their profile up.

Sonic67

Terror fears as hate preacher Anjem Choudary returns to the street

If a 15 year old girl could go out there and join Daesh what was his excuse?