[RichardCoulter]

It's an interesting subject. I suppose the politicians have to balance the right to free speech against the right for others not to have to be upset or extremely offended by what others say. Isn't there a saying that goes along the lines of "I may disagree with what you say, but i'll defend your right to say it".

Matthew Wright is on record, despite being 'politically correct', as saying that the more he thinks about it, the more he thinks people should have the right to say whatever they want to.

There is also the argument that, if you suppress views, the people who want to say them resent the fact that they are prevented from saying them and their views cannot be challenged and can't be persuaded to change them by it being debated. Their views will just fester inside them.

For example, in Germany I believe it is illegal to deny that the holocaust ever took place.

A good example of this approach is that, in the 60's, paedophiles argued for the right of adults to have sex with children and even got some respected organisations to support them (I think one was Amnesty International, who have since said that they regret this).

But where do you draw the line on complete freedom of speech? Should it be legal for someone to say to someone with a facial disfigurement that they look frightening or that they disgust them? Which is more important, the right for someone to say this, or a person with a disfigurement not to have the effects of their misfortune further upsetting them?

There was once a forum that allowed complete freedom of speech, but it got closed down as their web hosting company etc withdrew support.

In fact, if we have freedom of speech, it could be argued that what people say should never be moderated.

Like I say, it's a difficult balancing act for Parliament.

I suppose it depends on what is said and why It's being said. There is a difference between someone shouting insults against black, gay etc people in a deliberate attempt to upset them and a proper adult debate to discuss why some people don't agree with people of colour being in the UK or homosexual acts.

I do agree that this 'woke' culture is going too far and is counter productive in many ways and is being used by some to control people who don't share their views.

Going back to the Fantasy Football issue, I do still agree with the offensive team names being removed as this doesn't stimulate a proper adult debate and merely offends victims of child sex abuse, black/gay people, families affected by the holocaust etc.

Even if people are only exposed to it when looking for it, the fact remains that these offensive terms serve no useful purpose, so shouldn't be allowed as they needlessly upset people.