What freedom?

The Geert Wilders business has focused attention on our so-called "freedom of speech". I say so-called because like most of what we call our "rights" this freedom is residual - that is to say it only exists where it does not conflict with the law. Of course the problem is that the law is far from clear. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act starts by asserting that everybody has "... the right of freedom of expression... freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". Pretty good, yes? But then it goes on to say (and I'm afraid that to get the full effect I need to quote the whole thing) that this freedom "...may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." So go on, pick the bones out of that! This is such a wide-ranging cop-out that it means that if the powers that be don't like what you are saying, they can almost certainly bring it under one of those exclusions and therefore stop you. So we're only as free as they allow us to be - sort of grace and favour freedom really.