Perhaps the thread should have started with a note of the following legislation ... it might perhaps have led to a more informed debate ... it certainly does clarify what is and what is not legitimate free speech.
127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
Working my way steadily through the thread.
This is a useful post, I think.
You simply can't have a rule that people who dish out abuse on the internet will be excused scrutiny for fear that if they are called to account, they might take their own life, tragic though such an outcome unquestionably is.
And it's also pertinent to remember that Kate has been suicidal and Kate and Gerry have both on the receiving end of vile abuse, from so many quarters.
Indeed, Brenda Leyland herself, challenged by Brunt about some of her more unsavoury comments, replied
that's my right.
What's to say?