When you have finished reading this, think of Robert Green http://freerobertgreen.co.uk
From The Firmfeatures. 30 Jan 2012
Using the law to silence dissent
Perhaps no one knows the penalty for incautious speech more than Tommy Sheridan. Free speech carries a duty to exercise it responsibly, and the courts have long protected the public with laws protecting against defamation, and recently criminal offences for incitement or hate speech. But it is unprecedented to impose a blanket ban of silence on an offender returning to the community. Have we become so afraid of words that they cannot now be uttered? Fraser Matheson takes a look.
Earlier today Tommy Sheridan was released from Castle Huntly prison on license. Over the weekend, The Firm reported that he is understood be banned from public speaking as a condition of his license.
Take a moment to let that sink in.
Today – in 2012 and in a modern democracy – the state has chosen to silence a voice for fear of what it might say. What other reason could there be for the imposition of this condition? The condition is not necessary to protect the public, unless of course you believe that the public require to be protected from Mr Sheridan’s views. Are those judgements which you are happy for the state to make on your behalf? Are you comforted by that prospect?
That this illiberal, repressive and utterly contemptible restriction on Mr Sheridan’s rights was ever conceived speaks volumes of an institutionalised manner of thinking which I find genuinely horrifying. There are people in positions of power in Scotland today who see no problem in using the law to silence dissent.
Does that not scare you?
It certainly scares me. I am quite sure that readers of the Firm do not need to be persuaded of the importance of free speech to functioning democracy. In modern democratic societies we recognise that the future is shaped by debate and discussion, and not through force of arms. We recognise that in a true democracy everyone is entitled to add their voice to that process. Our voices are all we have. It scares me to know that the modern Scottish state believes itself empowered to silence our voices where it sees fit.
Mr Sheridan has been robbed of his right to raise his voice and participate in the democratic process. He has been robbed of his right at a moment of enormous significance for Scotland’s future. That is not acceptable.
Paul McBride QC has observed that this oppressive license condition is probably challengeable in the courts. But this issue cuts deeper than the legalities. The real horror here – legality or otherwise aside – is that public officials in modern Scotland saw fit to impose the condition in the first place. Even if Mr Sheridan successfully challenges the condition, that problem will remain. That poisonous temperament will subsist.
I hope that Mr Sheridan challenges this illiberal condition. I hope that the courts are able to defend his voice. If the law will not provide Mr Sheridan with a remedy, then the law will have failed.
The state was never given authority to silence those voices with which it does not expect to agree. That way lies oppression and tyranny. Today I raise my voice in support of Tommy Sheridan’s. I urge all those who value their voice and their freedom to use it to do likewise.
Fraser Matheson is a LLb student at the University of Aberdeen
Image Credit: Press Association
Think of Robert Green http://freerobertgreen.co.uk
The word Eurosceptic has been hijacked by those who think reform from the inside is possible. Its not. 
I suggest he speaks privately to someone with a blog. There’s more than one way to skin a fascist and someone else divulging what TS has said IN PRIVATE keeps him clean.
Hmmm, the alternative was to keep him locked up. It is a condition of him being released from incarceration earlier than that sentence imposed upon him by a court of law that his right to free speech is limited.
In Gaol you have a right to free speech, however, your views are limited to an audience who are incaserated by law too.