Freedom of speech

We Spectator bloggers are now living under a new regime. Rather than posting our blogs ourselves, we now have to go through the Spectator.com editors. This is all very sensible. Libel is a serious business and you can’t be too careful these days. The Spectator has been a stalwart defender of freedom of speech and I know Fraser Nelson feels particularly strongly about this.  The closing down of debate – especially on the subject of radical Islam – is something that hits at the heart of democracy and liberal thought. This magazine has been as courageous as it is possible to be in this area without putting the publication out

Policy Exchange’s work on Islamism has been some of the most important undertaken by a think-tank in recent years. It has influenced and bolstered the thinking of brave politicians in both the last government and the current one. That’s why it is so important that Policy Exchange came off best in the libel case brought against it by North London Central mosque. The case is now over and the mosque has made, what Policy Exchange calls, ‘a substantial contribution’ towards the think tank’s costs. Policy Exchange has stated that it never meant to suggest that extremist literature was sold or distributed on the mosque’s grounds with the consent of the

The US constitution cannot stop Pastor Terry Jones from burning 100 Korans to mark the 9th anniversary of 11 September, and neither should it – the right to free speech is absolute when within the law. But free speech comes with responsibilities. Just as it is unwise to build, with provocative intent, a mosque near the site of Ground Zero, so too for a Christian minister to burn the Koran as a publicity stunt. Such mindlessness is grossly offensive to the peace abiding majority, and it also furthers endanger US and Allied troops abroad and the population at home by inciting contemptible extremism. Common sense and the tenets of Christian faith aside, Jones should

Paul Waugh has news that the Treasury asked a broadcaster to sign a written legal agreement that they would not ask any questions about the OBR’s announcement. Well, some of the figures embarrassed Osborne but surely it wasn’t that bad? As Paul notes, this may be a case of the Civil Service taking advantage of ministers’ inexperience but even so. Equally, the government has adopted the practice of its predecessor and issued statements to the press before stating them to the House. Carry on like this and we’ll join the axis of evil. New politics please. UPDATE: Turns out not to have been so worrying.

The Treasury have just banned transcripts of the all-important briefing they give to journalists after the budget. Coffee House broke the mould after the April budget by producing the first-ever transcript – releasing to the public the spin which journalists are given in the precious few hours they have to write up the Budget. This shows how journalists were wrongly told that there were no spending cuts, when there were in fact cuts of 7 percent over three years. Here is an example of their misleading briefing last year Q: Why are you cutting spending by more? A: By more? (quizzical look on his face) Q: Well not reducing the