Even complete berks deserve freedom of speech within the law.

There have been a number of ironies about the manner in which freedom of speech has been exercised and constrained in the days since the death of Her Majesty. It is only fair to admit that there is a real tension between the essential right of free speech which is central to any democracy, and the duty of the police to protect society against potential genuine threats to the peace.

Some of the people who deny that "no platform" policies in Universities are a threat to free speech have gone all Voltaire and John Stuart Mill over the arrest of people who shouted obscenities or held up placards with them at national mourning events.

I believe in free speech within the law - and that the law should always be both written and applied as generously as possible to freedom of expression.

Some - and I repeat, some - of the people who have had their collars felt by the police in recent days, such as the gentleman who held up a blank piece of paper, appear to have been on the wrong end of an over-reaction from officers who, as an official of the Police Federation put it. do not appear to have been properly briefed on what powers they do and do not have or what sort of conduct falls within reasonable protest.

First of all, it has to be said, there is a time and a place for everything. The same comments which expressed in one time and place may be a perfectly reasonable expression of free speech might in another place and context be depriving other people of equally important freedoms. For example, if a "humanist" sets up a meeting to explain why he doesn't believe in God, or says it at Speaker's corner, or posts it on his website, that's exercising free speech. 

But if he marches into a church, synagogue or mosque during a service, grabs the microphone from the priest, rabbi or imam and subjects the congregation to a harangue featuring exactly the same words, then that is not a legitimate exercise of his own right to freedom of speech but a wholly illegitimate interference with the right to the freedom of worship of the congregation.

To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, let me admit that I have very strong political views, and I will admit that I have occasionally been heard to express them with the odd swear word. Possibly more often than I should have. But something I have never done and would never do when attending a funeral for a member of a political party other than my own, is speak disrespectfully of the deceased or of his or her views at the funeral, let alone in impolite language. An event to mourn someone who has died is just not the time and place for it. That is not exercising free speech, it would be acting like a complete berk.

If you set up a meeting to express the view that Britain (or part of Britain) should be a republic, or if you write that view in an article in a newspaper or on your website, that's free speech.

Shout it during a period of silence which has been set up as a mark of respect for a monarch - or anyone else - who has just died, and you are not exercising free speech but interfering with the right of other people to mourn the deceased.

There could be all manner of reasons why someone might wish to make a negative comment about the conduct of a member of the Royal Family, or anyone else, and lots of perfectly legitimate ways to do so. Shouting something rude at a son who is taking part in a ceremony to mourn his recently deceased mother, whoever he is, whoever she was, does not make you a romantic rebel, or a martyr for free speech, it makes you a berk.

In some instances, the police are justified in removing people who do things like this, and among other reasons, in removing them for their own safety.

But that should only be done as a last resort and only if absolutely necessary. Even complete berks deserve freedom of speech within the law, and the law should give even complete berks as much freedom of speech as possible.

To repeat again a quote which I used recently, first in the context of the attempted assassination of Sir Salman Rushdie (who I don't despise) and again in the context of the successful assassination of a supporter of Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine (whose views I do despise) - 

There is an interesting piece on this subject on "The Article" website here. which gives one perspective, and an equally interesting discussion on the Spiked podcast which gives a rather different perspective in the YouTube clip below. I actually think both make good points.