Freedom of Speech?

Having seen a variety of examples on Twitter recently (via @Waterstones), I decided to buy a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights published by Amnesty International and illustrated by a variety of well-known artists. 

It made me think about some of the human rights that we take for granted in this country - the right to say or believe what we think without fear of reprisals, for example. But is this always the case? What would happen if a biology teacher decided to share their belief in creationism with their students? What if an unhappy worker decided to share their dissatisfaction with their employer - can they do so without fear of reprisal? Certainly there are legal restrictions on what one can say in the UK: any statement that is overtly racist becomes an opportunity for prosecution. 

I was recently reminded of this issue of freedom of speech when reading an article on the Huffington Post UK (http://huff.to/1fFatG3 ). A sixth former in a North London school has written an anonymous blog - highly satirical, he hastens to add - that criticises his school and its leadership in particular. Having glanced over a few posts, these criticisms feel highly personal. The Headteacher's response was to contact the student's proposed university and warn them of the anarchic tendencies of the student. Now, there has been much said in the news recently about the dangers of reducing freedom of speech and the possible impact this may have on comedy, and satirical comedy in particular. Rowan Atkinson, one of the UK's most prominent comic actors and writers supports an appeal against Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9616750/Rowan-Atkinson-we-must-be-allowed-to-insult-each-other.html, see). You can watch a YouTube clip of his statement at a Parliamentary reception for the Reform Section 5 campaign here:

http://youtu.be/gciegyiLYtY

Freedom of speech, this suggests, must be protected, even if it includes insult or intolerance; the only way to combat such intolerance is more speech, rather than less. And yet...

And yet, how do we deal with the very real pain felt by those who are adversely affected by others speaking freely in such a way that harm is caused? A quick glance at the Twitter feed @EverydaySexism demonstrates that speaking before thinking causes a ripple-effect of suffering. There does not seem to be a way of both protecting freedom of speech and, at the same time, protection people from the harm that such free speech could lead to. What do you think?