I think you have posted this man's comments before thatbags. I was reminded of that when I read, and remembered, that he considers the efforts to fight racism in football to be a "class war" driven by the "elites". Well, if he thinks that it's reasonable to accept a situation where a family might go to a football match and hear the crowd making monkey noises and throwing bananas at black players or singing "I'd rather be a Paki than a Kike/Jew", I'm not sure I agree with free speech to that extent.
He also wrote an article entitled "If you were abused by Jimmy Savile, maybe you should keep it to yourself", adding the comment "I think there is more virtue in keeping the abuse a part of your past". That sounds very much to me like trying to "victim shame" and muzzle people who may have been seriously damaged by historical abuse - so no free speech for them then.
I watched on You Tube his address to the Oxford Union on Freedom of Speech and the Right to Offend and thought it was very muddled. He used examples of people who were most definitely not part of the establishment challenging traditional views or completely incorrect but universally accepted "facts". Traditionally, those in power, many of whom might well be considered to be part of the "elite", have been averse to equality laws (for example, the Race Relations Act, which outlaws discriminatory behaviour and certain racially offensive comments).
I do agree with his comment regarding the unacceptability of newspapers such as the Sun and the Express being banned on some university campuses, although it has been widely questioned as to how this ban can be put into practice. These students are hardly the "elite" in this country, more an example of the impetuosity and impracticality that sometimes accompanies youthful thinking.
