If UK is the cradle of free speech, the baby is being strangled

I can only assume that Dr Frank resides in at least two of his “alternative universes”. From one universe, he treats Nation readers to his vitriolic, insult-laden rants against anyone who disagrees with his anti-democratic, Frankfurt School-ist theories, and from another universe, the arch-insulter questions whether The Nation should censor “insulting” words such as “retard” from readers’ letters. 
I would like to take Khon Kaen Paul’s sensible rebuttal a step further. If one believes in liberty, one must protect the right to offend and insult. What’s happening now worldwide is that we are descending down a slippery Orwellian slope towards censorship based on a subjective notion of “hate speech” whereby an insult is regarded as “hatred” and thus banned. The depth to which Britain, the world’s first champion of free speech, has sunk with its Race Relations Acts, Public Order Acts and most recently the Criminal Investigatory Powers Act, was starkly illustrated in the wake of the latest Islamist atrocities in London and Manchester. Despite the fact that the Metropolitan Police complain that their reduced forces make it impossible to monitor the known jihadis, they have increased the number of specialist investigators monitoring “hate speech” by 30 per cent, and there are now 900 officers sitting at computers checking social media and prosecuting innocent people. These include people who perhaps feel rather “offended” that their nearest and dearest have been blown to smithereens or stabbed to death. You couldn’t make it up. This is textbook Frankfurt School – breakdown of law and order and bias against victims of crime. 
In my opinion, all speech, whether considered “hate” or otherwise, must be free. Normal criminal law is adequate to deal with instances of incitement to violence.  So... “I hate Nigel Pike” – that’s fine by me. But “Nigel Pike is (some kind of) ’tard – go and behead him!” – I might just inform the police. 
Nigel Pike 
Phang Nga