Freedom of speech isn't it?

'I may not like what she says....' etc etc

This. It's fair to say, though, that social media, which thrives on shoiite like Hopkins regularly regurgitates, is infested in outlandish numbers by subhuman nasty pieces of work. Of course, all these people were always out there, but had no means of releasing their excrement to a wide audience. Now, though, you can troll and abuse the bereaved, the sick and the dying at will. We have a dumbed-down population which feeds on the 21c phenomenon of "celebrity", devouring utter dross like the minutiae of the lives of nonentities like Kim Kardashian. Banality reigns, and 'adults' waste whole swathes of their lives playing meaningless childish games and offering up semi-literate half-baked drivel as if anyone else wanted to hear it.

Scumbags like Hopkins have just cynically found a way to actually be paid for being just one more big mouthed, vile shhit-stirring asshole. And she probably even holds some of those views in real life.

Somebody has tweeted a page from her diary

I believe she made reference to those Palestinians digging tunnels (quite obviously with a view to terrorist activity) as filthy rodents.

I agree she is a poop stirring asshole, but I don't think she has crossed the line to inciting racial hatred or anything.

Amazing how many people champion free speech, then kick off when someone says something they don't like.

I think people champion responsible free speech.

If anybody dare tweet "Israeli's busy bombing Palestinians. 2 state solution my . Filthy rodents overrunning Palestine. Time to restart the gassing" I'm pretty sure there would be an investigation for racism.

I doubt that very much - the idea that nothing can ever be said against Israeli and the Jews is fantasy of the highest order. If you have any examples bring them to the table?

Back on topic whilst people will continue to buy these magazines this rubbish will continue to be printed. It is no different to what you read in the editorials of all our major newspapers - the difference is the quality of the language.

Racial slurs is OK is it ?

For many people, though, the concept that "freedom of speech" is qualified, not absolute, is a concept too far.

One should always keep within the confines of the law.

Very good but your truism skates over the fact that in the case of speech, "the law" only states general principles. The issue of whether any specific remark therefore falls foul of the law can often be extremely hard, or even impossible, to answer.

If people just ignored the silly bitch she may just vanish up her own rectum.

Quote: Sal Paradise "I doubt that very much - the idea that nothing can ever be said against Israeli and the Jews is fantasy of the highest order. If you have any examples bring them to the table? Back on topic whilst people will continue to buy these magazines this rubbish will continue to be printed. It is no different to what you read in the editorials of all our major newspapers - the difference is the quality of the language.'" This guy was jailed recently for tweeting "Hitler was right” and “You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually.” www.jewishnews.co.uk/bergers-neo ... precedent/

Quote: Sal Paradise "I doubt that very much - the idea that nothing can ever be said against Israeli and the Jews is fantasy of the highest order. If you have any examples bring them to the table? Back on topic whilst people will continue to buy these magazines this rubbish will continue to be printed. It is no different to what you read in the editorials of all our major newspapers - the difference is the quality of the language.'" This guy was jailed recently for tweeting "Hitler was right” and “You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually.” www.jewishnews.co.uk/bergers-neo ... precedent/

FWIW

I've never heard of her, but from this thread I doubt if I am missing anything.

Therefore, lots more must be in the same position.