What happened to free speech?

There is a story in the Sun today about a former squaddie-turned-EDL member Andrew Ryan, who has been jailed for 70 days for burning a Koran which he stole from the local library. Comparisons have been made between this incident and the infamous "Poppy-burner", who got fined £60 for burning poppies on Armistice day, (although in the interest of fairness it does mention that Ryan does have previous convictions of "indecent and racially aggravated language".

My take on the situation is firstly, its a disgrace that the poppy-burner got fined £60. He shouldn't have been fined at all. Yes his opinions were offensive to many, but the whole point of freedom of speech/expression is that it protects UNPOPULAR opinions. You cannot fine somebody for simply having an opinion.  And before anybody says 'I believe in freedom of speech...... but you shouldn't offend anybody", there is not right not to be offended. If you're so thin skinned that one nutcase burns a symbolic poppy somewhere causes you to be offended, then you're the one who has a problem. There are many things to get worked up in the world, a poppy burner should be far down the list. Infact, those soldiers who dies in the war were supposedly doing so for our freedoms, like freedom of speech.

And so I go on to Mr. Ryan. First of all, I think this sentence has less to do with public morality, and probably more to do with the fact that if the extremists in Afghanistan get to hear about it, they could use it as propaganda for Taliban recruitment against our Forces in Afghanistan. And anyway, if were not allowed to criticize the Koran, which if taken literally encourages homophobia and sexism, then what can we criticize? Religion is (or at least should be) a personal choice, nobody is "born" into a religion, and thus that choice should be open to debate.

And lastly, censoring anybody (however much of a nutcase) is more likely to turn them into a martyr, instead of exposing them for the nutcases that they really are. A case in point is the BNP. The BNP were regularly censored for their views on immigration. However, many people, rightly or wrongly, were upset with the Labour governments policies on immigration, and were wrongly branded "racists" by self-important Islington liberals, and thus leading a semi-censorship of their opinions. Hence, BNP support increases, and they won seats in the EU parliament. This lead to them appearing on Question Time, which lead to Nick Griffin making a fool out of himself, and thus the BNP did really badly in the 2010 elections.

Therefore, censoring unpopular opinions is firstly immoral, and secondly is self-defeating. The best way to combat extremist views is by open debates, not by "No Platform" policies. And lastly, freedom of speech is a right that is all-or-nothing. Either you let everybody have the right, or there is no freedom of speech. If you truly care for freedom of speech, you should defend the rights of holocaust deniers, Islamic extremists, and for all those with opinions you find repulsive, otherwise you're basically saying "Only I have the right to an opinion because I'm right, and you're wrong", which is possibly the most bigoted opinion of all