Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech


9:30 am - October 19th 2012

by Robert Sharp    


      Share on Tumblr

BNP Chairman Nick Griffin MEP has just caused a bit of a Twitter storm by publishing the address of a gay couple who sued a Christian B&B couple who refused them board.

I spend a lot of time on this blog defending the right of bigots and racists to say horrible things, online and in person. However, I think this superficially anodyne tweet might actually cross the line into territory I would not defend.

Why? Well, first, there is an invasion of privacy. Griffin is a public figure with a large Twitter following. The couple in question have a reasonable expectation that their address will not be broadcast.

More importantly, the tweet could be considered inciting violence and harassment. In a followup, Griffin said a ‘British Justice Team’ (whatever that is) should visit to give them ‘a bit of drama’. If it were my address that had been published, I would feel harassed and terrorised and probably go and stay elsewhere for a few days.

This is the sort of ‘direct’ incitement I have spoken of previously when considering the boundaries of free speech.

Regardless of whether people visit this house or not, this controversy will unfold in a particularly frustrating manner. Griffin has already begun to complain that he is a free speech martyr, the victim of hypocrisy, denied free speech yet again.

But that is not what is going on here. The tweets are unacceptable not because he is a misguided racist, but because they directly incite violence and invade privacy. It is entirely consistent to say that these tweets are beyond the pale, while simultaneously defending the right of people to make sick jokes and the celebrate the death of British soldiers.

This distinction may well be lost in the 140 character world of Twitter. Doubtless the subtlties outlined above will be lost. And if someone tries to prosecute Nick Griffin for this, it will be a huge headache for those of us who think that the convictions of Matthew Woods, Azhar Ahmed and Liam Stacy were excessive, and who are planning to respond to the DPP consultation on social media.

On the issue of gays and Christian B&B owners, I have written previously about why I think the owners have no right to discriminate. Regardless of whether the B&B is someone’s house, the owners are running a business, which is a public act, subject to the public laws.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Robert Sharp designed the Liberal Conspiracy site. He is Head of Campaigns at English PEN, a blogger, and a founder of digital design company Fifty Nine Productions. For more of this sort of thing, visit Rob's eponymous blog or follow him on Twitter @robertsharp59. All posts here are written in a personal capacity, obviously.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Good piece, but I don’t think this is a free speech issue – it is a clear cut case of incitement with the intention to intimidate, and is an entirely different kettle of fish to the recent convictions around offensive communications.

There is a second story here, and that is the political context in which the BNP find themselves. That is something I’ve concentrated on my own take on Griffin’s tweets here

I think Phil is correct.
The Griffin tweets are not ill thought out in terms of raising possibility of prosecution, they are specifically designed to get him arrested on something that ‘looks like’ free speech to people who are only following headlines.
Brons left the BNP on the same day, Griffin needs the pulicity annd money that a prosecution could bring.

As far as im concerned he can say what he likes about them – except publishing their address.

As @1 says that is not a free speech issue.

4. Amnesty Sucks

And what about the owners rights to practice their religion? Being gay is a lifestyle choice nothing more, religion is more important than that or it should be. The B&B owners did the right thing, poncy poofters had to go cry to the courts instead of doing the right thing & slinging their hooks.

I’m guessing a ‘British Justice Team’ comprises a van-load of homophobic, fascist, skin-heads.

Today’s media coverage is extremely irritating. There are two issues here. One one hand there is a legitimate debate to be had about the rights of bigoted B&B owners versus those of gay holiday-makers. Don’t get me wrong – I’m perfectly clear where I stand in that argument. But there is a clash of rights here, and negotiating the correct balance is delicate. Everyone – Nick Griffin – included is welcome to have their say.

But that is absolutely not the issue here. The issue is publicizing someone’s home address online – *for any reason whatsoever*. That is harassment, plain and simple.

6. James from Durham

Is “poncy poofters” the language of a christian? This kind of hate-speak brings christianity into disrepute and I hope any christians will distance themselves from you. I think maybe you should spend a little time in prayer and reflection considering whether you are acting as a good witness/ambassador for Christ.

7. Chaise Guevara

“a ‘British Justice Team’ (whatever that is)”

Worst superhero show ever?

“The tweets are unacceptable not because he is a misguided racist, but because they directly incite violence and invade privacy. ”

Acid test: if someone exposed another person as a racist, published their address and encouraged others to go give them “drama”, would we still find this unacceptable? Yes we would.

8. Chaise Guevara

@ 4 Amnesty Sucks

“And what about the owners rights to practice their religion?”

They have every right to do so, as long as they don’t break the law. Just like everyone else.

“Being gay is a lifestyle choice nothing more, religion is more important than that or it should be.”

I’m not sure why you think “lifestyle choices” are lower-priority than other things, but you’ve made a tactical error here. Being gay is a sexuality, not a lifestyle choice. Religion, on the other hand, is a lifestyle choice, albeit one that tends to be pretty ingrained.

“The B&B owners did the right thing, poncy poofters had to go cry to the courts instead of doing the right thing & slinging their hooks.”

Do you feel like a big man, stalking around the internet and using the bigoted terms you’re too scared to say in public?

5

There is no clash of rights, Robert shows why in the last paragraph – ‘the owners are running a business, which is a public act’. Although the B&B is a home, it is operating as a business and therefore it no longer remains the status of private dwelling. This means that agencies such as environmental health and the local fire service are entitled to enter the business to inspect public health/safety, but this is not the case for a private dwelling without a court warrant.

The bottom line is, a private individual can stop anyone entering their home based on any prejudice/discrimination they like (unless that person has a court warrant) A business is subject to the law and, in this case, they have acted against the law.

10. Chaise Guevara

@ steveb

I think when Larry says “a clash of rights”, he doesn’t mean the law is contradictory. He means a clash between two things considered (morally rather than legally) to be rights by different groups.

I’m guessing a ‘British Justice Team’ comprises a van-load of homophobic, fascist, skin-heads.

Larry, you do seem to have a vivid imagination.
Is there even such a thing as skinheads anymore?
Proper old-time ones I mean, rather than some retro-camp look-alike pretend ones.

And I hope you weren’t implying that us men who have to adopt the Phil Mitchell close crop look – are ‘skinheads’.

@11

So I was imagining the bovver-booted, bomber jacketed, fascist saluting blokes with no hair when I had a run in with the BNP?

Idiot.

13. Chaise Guevara

To be fair, many classic skinheads were big fans of two-tone, which the BNP probably considers to be miscegenation.

I agree, Nick Griffiths has stepped a little too far as the tweets are incitement.

But the Christian B&B owner’s business is their business and nothing public at all. They allow people onto their premises under their rules. An absolute. Just as a pub landlord can bar people from his pub for whatever reason. A B&B is not totally open to the public. You can’t just walk off the street and without booking a room expect to have any service. More likely you would be kicked out. This is what happened to the gay couple.

And you have to allow the Christian couple the right to offend the gay couple. Because they gay couple offended the Christian couple. Either you ban all offending, in which case you might as well tape your mouth shut, or you allow everyone to be offended. And if everyone has the right to be offended, then they can’t complain and whine and stamp their feet shouting “not fair”. Grow a pair and a thick skin.

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 14 SadButMadLad

I agree with you regarding offence, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is discrimination. Fair enough if you think the B&B people’s rights trump the gay couple’s (my take on your position there is “I sympathise but disagree”), but let’s not lose sight of the issue.

(Unless, of course, they WERE charged with causing offence, in which case they’d be victims too).

16. Shatterface

The rights and wrongs of the B&B case are an entirely seperate issue: this is about ‘free speech’ and were we draw the line.

I’m pretty much a free speech fundamentalist – but free speech is worthless without the right to privacy. Like most anonymous posters I believe that the right to privacy protects my right to free speech: being anonymous allows me to discuss my bipolar condition and Asperger’s without social or professional embarassment. Without anonymity I’d have to hold back on what I say or mask it by talking about ‘a friend’ when I really mean myself.

And the worst I risk is embarrassment, not harassment or actual violence as this couple face.

Without freedom from possible consequences there is no free speech – so there’s a clear ‘free speech’ case for the restriction of ‘free speech’ in certain cirumstances.

Chaise @7:

“”a ‘British Justice Team’ (whatever that is)”

Worst superhero show ever?”

“Starring Tom Denning, David Eady and Igor Judge! And introducing Michael Argyle as “Krypto-fascist”!”

Could run and run on Dave, that.

AM@4:

“Being gay is a lifestyle choice”

No, it isn’t.

JFD@6:

“Is “poncy poofters” the language of a christian?”

It is what some of them say. It’s also what many more of them think, but haven’t the courage to utter openly. Still a minority of the whole, one would hope.

Damon@11:

“And I hope you weren’t implying that us men who have to adopt the Phil Mitchell close crop look – are ‘skinheads’.”

Of course you are – it’s a ‘lifestyle choice’! 😉

SBML@14:

“And you have to allow the Christian couple the right to offend the gay couple. Because they gay couple offended the Christian couple.”

The gay couple ‘offended’ the Christian couple simply by being. The Christian couple offended the gay couple by a deliberate act. There’s a qualitative difference there. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with you.

On the general point, I would say that Griffin is at liberty to say what he chooses, but that when he lapses (as he seems quite clearly to have done here) into threatening to ‘send the boys round’, knowing that – such is the quality of intellect amongst his followers – some of them will seek to fulfil his wish, he has overstepped into that area of deliberate intimidation and incitement to which Robert refers. Nonetheless, I’m still not really sure that his remarks in themselves are suitable for investigation; perhaps just a quiet word in his ear that – if anyone actually does carry out the threat – he would be the first one to be hauled in for questioning.

@11

So I was imagining the bovver-booted, bomber jacketed, fascist saluting blokes with no hair when I had a run in with the BNP?

I can’t remember the time I last saw some skinheads.
So maybe you were just unlucky to come across a few of a very rare species. ”Bovver-boots” and all you say?
Are you sure they just weren’t Timberlands or Caterpillar? As for the ”no hair” bit. A lot of people lump in the working class close crop hair look with something sinister. I usually see that as a bit of class prejudice myself.

But if you say they were skinheads, who am I to say they weren’t? It’s just proper to be clear what we’re talking about.
These EDL people for example, are obviously not skinheads. Although some people who are not used to such rough working class type men might be confused by the way they look and think they were.
It’s easily done.

14

You are totally wrong, the B&B is a business and is subject to the law, in the same way as a 5 star hotel cannot discriminate against race, sex or sexual preference. There is a certain hotel group which prohibits children, but they are not breaking any law because no law exists with regard to discrimination on the grounds of being a child. Now if the B&B said it only allows married couples, they would be working within the law, as there is no law about discrimination against non married couples and, at present, gay couples can only have a civil-partnership.

And this applies to pub landlords/ladies, they can bar anyone they like if it is within the law, but they cannot bar anyone on the grounds of race, sex or sexual preference.

You can’t just walk off the street and without booking a room expect to have any service. More likely you would be kicked out. This is what happened to the gay couple.

That isn’t quite what happened. The gay couple in question had booked the room well in advance and paid for the booking, when the B&B owners discovered the ‘married couple’ of the booking was in fact a civil partnershiped gay couple or ‘gay married couple’ upon their arrival, they began flapping, returned the booking money and explained that they were Christians etc etc.

21. Shatterface

And you have to allow the Christian couple the right to offend the gay couple.

They didn’t ‘offend’ the gay couple, they denied them a service they were licensed to provide.

Because they gay couple offended the Christian couple.

You can’t offend someone by being gay – that person can take offense – but that’s different. The ‘offendee’ is the actor in this situation, the ‘offender’ is passive. You might as well claim that black people are an offense to racists.

Either you ban all offending, in which case you might as well tape your mouth shut, or you allow everyone to be offended. And if everyone has the right to be offended, then they can’t complain and whine and stamp their feet shouting “not fair”. Grow a pair and a thick skin.

You can’t ban offending where people are determined to take offense. You can ban descrimination.

You might as well claim that black people are an offense to racists.

Football fans currently call this the Serbian position.

Using the power of the state to compel B & B owners to admit guests against their better judgement is clearly totalitarian and demonstrates the extent to which Britain is now becoming a police state. These businesses are private homes, not hotel chains. Comparisons with environmental health regulations (steveb @ 9) are clearly risible. According to newspaper reports the B & B owners in this case have been subject to “years of obscene emails, texts, damning TripAdvisor reviews, cancelled reservations and even death threats. They received hundreds of emails an hour from around the world, as well as phone calls and texts some which were very sexually explicit”. The gay couple would have been well aware that this would happen when they started their legal action. They are now reaping what they have sown.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ steveb

“Now if the B&B said it only allows married couples, they would be working within the law, as there is no law about discrimination against non married couples and, at present, gay couples can only have a civil-partnership.”

Actually, no, if precedent is anything to go by: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2011/january/court-finds-hotel-owners-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

Basically it seems that the judge could tell the whole “It’s not cos you’re gay it’s just cos you’re not married” thing is a canard.

@17. The Judge: “On the general point, I would say that Griffin is at liberty to say what he chooses, but that when he lapses (as he seems quite clearly to have done here) into threatening to ‘send the boys round’, knowing that – such is the quality of intellect amongst his followers – some of them will seek to fulfil his wish, he has overstepped into that area of deliberate intimidation and incitement to which Robert refers. Nonetheless, I’m still not really sure that his remarks in themselves are suitable for investigation; perhaps just a quiet word in his ear that – if anyone actually does carry out the threat – he would be the first one to be hauled in for questioning.”

I think this case provides a good opportunity to think again about harassment via electronic communications. In previous threads, liberal opinion has largely agreed that “offensive” Tweets or blog posts were rude and annoying but did not amount to harassment. But now we have a new case where Griffin’s words might be interpreted as “we know who you are and we know where you live”. It is not a general blow off but one that seems to be (literally) addressed at two men.

Assuming the news reports to be true, Griffin has intentionally pushed the boundary. Analysts of far right politics will point to Griffin’s vulnerability as leader of a dividing BNP; Griffin may be playing a martyr game.

One half of me wants to agree with The Judge that a quiet word is the appropriate way to deal with Griffin; I do not wish him to become a martyr, so a quiet word might be appropriate, but I don’t feel that his words were intended in the same way as in previous “offensive blog/tweet” cases.

The other half seeks a prosecution of harassing tweets etc, to demonstrate that the intention of the law makers was valid. There is a need for protection from bullying and threats delivered by electronic communications.

Griffin has showed why the worst swear words are too good for him!

A few years ago, the ALF sent all my neighbours fliers with graphic images of animal experimentation and vivisection and invited them to put “pressure” on me to divest myself of my (then held) shareholding in Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Were they guilty of “incitement” by doing so?

And what about if one of my neighbours had burnt my house down with my family still in it. Guilty then?

Actually, I would answer both of the above questions in the negative and the libertarian position is best articulated by Rothbard.

“Anyone who believes in free will must believe that each man is fully responsible for his own actions, and therefore cannot pin any blame for his crime on some other fellow’s “incitement.”

Would I never punish speech under any circumstances?

Only when this speech is a direct threat of criminal action. In short, if I walk over to someone menacingly and say that I will kill him unless he hands me his wallet, I am committing a direct threat of crime, and this is properly punishable by a jury.”

Griffin’s tweets don’t pass that litmus test.

23

Sexual Orientation Act (2007) addresses the provision of goods and services and the discrimination thereof.
Para (1a) access to a place where the public are permitted to enter.
Para (1b) Accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or similar establishment.

The Third Reich were a totalitarian state, they sent gay people to forced labour camps where death would quickly ensue. The B&B couple have free entry and exit to carry out business in their preferred area, but within the law, your comparison is daft beyond belief.

24 Chaise,

Yes, the judge saw through their obvious untruthful defence, however, if the B&B had made it clear on their website, prior to the gay couple booking, that they did not accept non-married couples sharing a bed, and this also applied to hetrosexual couples, there would have been no case to answer.

@18. damon: “I can’t remember the time I last saw some skinheads.”

The last time I saw any skinheads was in a gay pub. They dressed as post-punk or 1970s skinheads They had little time for TVs, women or non-macho men, but were accepted as part of the LGBT scene.

“So maybe you were just unlucky to come across a few of a very rare species. ”Bovver-boots” and all you say?”

Original skinheads are grand parent age and older. Punk era skinheads are in their late 40s, or plus a bit. Likely grand parents or grand uncles and grand aunts, too.

“Are you sure they just weren’t Timberlands or Caterpillar?”

Skinheads were originally a fashion movement. In modern times there will be those who follow retro-skinhead. Suede head was a brief fashion, or perhaps a revival of the original.

In the 1980s football club followers, those that belonged to “casuals”, established new dress codes. They borrowed from the past (Fred Perry shirts, for example) and added new styles.

“As for the ”no hair” bit. A lot of people lump in the working class close crop hair look with something sinister. I usually see that as a bit of class prejudice myself.”

I am sure that lots of close cropped middle class men associate their appearance with that of Yul Brynner.

I’ve got big hair that sprouts over night. I might appear scary because I have so much hair. After all, hippies scared straight folks during grandpa’s day.

That’s not a “litmus test”, Pagar, that’s the babbling of the hopelessly bewildered.

I suppose some credit is due to you to sticking to your principles under serious personal pressure. Doesn’t change the fact that your principles are irredeemably ridiculous though.

@27. pagar: “A few years ago, the ALF sent all my neighbours fliers with graphic images of animal experimentation and vivisection and invited them to put “pressure” on me to divest myself of my (then held) shareholding in Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Were they guilty of “incitement” by doing so?”

Thanks for that, Pagar. I partially admire your libertarian position.

However, your ability to withstand a threat is exceptional. Most of us need a social reply, “this is an unacceptable threat”, to enforce our confidence.

Taken to the extreme, Rothbard’s argument about *direct threat* would require the ALF person to confront you and directly threaten you. If the ALF person threatened you, under any legal system there would be a fair harassment case. But following Rothbard, *indirect threats* would be disregarded?

As a liberal, why not think about rational sources of fear? Anyone who expresses hate or violence requires a bit of inspection; the views may not require Rampton but just look at them.

If people are afraid, their capacity to act as free individuals is compromised. It is therefore liberal to remove some of that fear by tackling bullies.

The Pagar/Rothbard position is supposed to be all about free will and people accepting the consequences of their actions.

In fact it achieves the precise opposite.

The reality is that Nick Griffin’s actions have directly made the world a significantly more dangerous place for Messrs Black and Morgan – something he has absolutely no right to do, and for which he should be held accountable. But Pagar wishes to insulate him from the consequences of his actions, on the basis of… I dunno, some cod philosophical claptrap.

@ Larry

The reality is that Nick Griffin’s actions have directly made the world a significantly more dangerous place for Messrs Black and Morgan – something he has absolutely no right to do, and for which he should be held accountable.

To be clear, Nick Griffin is, in my view, a sad and despicable individual and his address is readily accessible on the internet. Remember a list of all BNP members was published and many lost their jobs as a result?

Was anyone here outraged at the leak?

If people wish to demonstrate their disgust at his views they are free to do so. I will not feel the least bit accountable for inciting any actions they might take by pointing out that his home address is in the public domain (but they must be accountable for their own).

“Was anyone here outraged at the leak?”

If e.g. Libcon or a newspaper or anyone else vaguely reputable had been leaked it, I would certainly have criticised them in very strong terms, yes. Because it would have been a bloody irresponsible thing to do. (“Irresponsible”, Definition: failing to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.)

Since it was in fact leaked by disenfranchised BNP members, I was quite content to sit back and enjoy the show.

35. Chaise Guevara

@ Charlieman

“One half of me wants to agree with The Judge that a quiet word is the appropriate way to deal with Griffin; I do not wish him to become a martyr, so a quiet word might be appropriate, but I don’t feel that his words were intended in the same way as in previous “offensive blog/tweet” cases.”

In any case, we shouldn’t be deciding what should be illegal and what shouldn’t based on the political results of prosecuting one individual.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 pagar

“To be clear, Nick Griffin is, in my view, a sad and despicable individual and his address is readily accessible on the internet. Remember a list of all BNP members was published and many lost their jobs as a result?

Was anyone here outraged at the leak?”

Yup. People shouldn’t be targeted for being silent members of any political party.

As for your ALF thing, I’d need to know the exact wording of the flyers to know whether I think they should be prosecutable. Either way, though, you have my sympathies. You shouldn’t be the target of mob justice for supporting medical research.

@35. Chaise Guevara: “In any case, we shouldn’t be deciding what should be illegal and what shouldn’t based on the political results of prosecuting one individual.”

I think you’ll find, Chaise, that case law is based on cases (ie individual circumstances). In this example, I sympathise with the prosecutors. How do they deal with alleged harassment when the accused seeks to become a martyr? Sadly, I think it would be wise to drop this one.

@36. Chaise Guevara: “Yup. People shouldn’t be targeted for being silent members of any political party.”

Me too. I was particularly disgusted by the data mashups that projected an old BNP membership list onto Google maps, showing where past and present BNP members lived. As an academic exercise, demonstrating regional support using anonymous data, it would have been interesting. But as a political stunt, it was bullying.

39. Waterloo Sunset

@ Damon

I can’t remember the time I last saw some skinheads.

Go to an ska night.

Although it might be a bit working class for yer average Spiked reader, obvs.

Waterloo Sunset, will they be proper skins like the ones I rememeber at Sham 69’s last gig in London? The one that got stopped because hooligan skinhead behavior in the audience.
Why do I get the idea that current ones will be fashionistas not real skinheads?

On skinheads and gigs – an ex-skinhead I knew who put on gigs said that they behaved themselves at gigs on the whole because they knew that if something kicked off it could turn really violent. He put on a gig for the local skins and certainly those shaven head blokes with the little swastikas tattooed on their necks made no trouble – and everyone else was keeping their distance from them.

Although skinheads are a bit off topic, I mentioed them just because someone brought up this image of sieg heiling BNP skinheads. Because I never see skinheads …. anywhere. And secondly, because I don’t think the BNP really wants skinheads around anyway.
Do they?

Now I never see the BNP anywhere either, but they obviously exist, like the elusive skinheads ….or Madagascan lemurs.

Skinheads are far, far rarer than their modern equivilent, which would probably be the hoodie neighbourhood ”post code gang-bangers”.
And you see them everywhere.
Or you guess that’s what they might be.
It’s not always easy to tell the real ones from the pretend ones.

Since it seems to have become an issue, I’m prepared to concede that I may not be fully up to date on the matter of the fashionability of different haircuts in the neo-Nazi community.

44. Waterloo Sunset

@Damon

will they be proper skins like the ones I rememeber at Sham 69?s last gig in London? The one that got stopped because hooligan skinhead behavior in the audience.

Some of them may even be the same people… Obviously, they’re less likely to get in a punch-up these days. Their wives would kill them.

Why do I get the idea that current ones will be fashionistas not real skinheads?

You tell us. It’s obviously not based on any kind of facts or direct experience. But, y’know, we’re kinda used to the concept that your opinions seem to be plucked from the ether.

That’s just a bizarre analysis. Apart from anything else, skinhead (as a subculture) simply isn’t trendy enough to attract fashionistas. Why would they listen to ska when they can listen to post-rock?

One thing I would agree with you on is that the BNP (and the EDL for that matter) aren’t really attracting the bonehead crowd. That lot are a lot more likely to be found in the NF or Blood & Honour.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Simon

    Excellent post on @libcon about Nick Griffin's twattery and the limits of free speech http://t.co/Cn4eNt9f

  2. R. Ville

    Nothing like @libcon post about the gay couple, nick griffin, freedom of speech & falling to use the word #homophobia http://t.co/EOP5pgf5

  3. Contrast News

    Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/M6qRbNWw via @libcon

  4. Charlie

    Nothing like @libcon post about the gay couple, nick griffin, freedom of speech & falling to use the word #homophobia http://t.co/EOP5pgf5

  5. Jason Brickley

    Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech http://t.co/5rugiqD5

  6. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech http://t.co/nJSM5nTl

  7. James Grant (JRF)

    Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech http://t.co/T1wfGH5L via @libcon

  8. Visceral Business

    RT @bristoljames: Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech http://t.co/heaKYXob via @libcon

  9. Noxi

    Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/9Glassfl

  10. Eugene Grant

    Nick Griffin’s tweets and the limits of free speech http://t.co/byyxBCE7 @libcon > excellent post. Wholeheartedly agree.

  11. David Waldock

    Excellent analysis, although somehow manages to fail to mention that Griffin is an odious cunt. http://t.co/95yMSizo

  12. Mike Ward

    Excellent analysis, although somehow manages to fail to mention that Griffin is an odious cunt. http://t.co/95yMSizo

  13. Joanna Franks

    Excellent analysis, although somehow manages to fail to mention that Griffin is an odious cunt. http://t.co/95yMSizo

  14. Nick Griffin’s nasty piece of intimidation | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] discussed Griffin’s latest attempt to get some publicity for the collapsing BNP in terms of the limits of free speech or argued that the response from many on Twitter was overblown. Something that seems to have been […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.