Freedom of speech: absolute, or absent.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." (Orwell 1984)

Ignoring the handful of idiotic maths "teachers" in California and Ontario who recently claimed 2+2=4 to be a statement of white supremacy, the absolute veracity of 2+2=4 is agreed on by all. 2+2=4 lacks the controversy of emotion and opinion; it is a statement of fact provable a priori. So, we are free to accept two plus two equals four.

But what are we to do with uncomfortable truths, or statements of opinion, some of which have fuelled disgusting scenes such as those recently seen in Rotherham?

Merriam Webster defines freedom as "the quality or state of being free, such as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." By definition therefore, the moment speech is qualified, it is no longer free.

On Sunday Jessica Simor KC took to Twitter (yes, we are still free to call it that) to politely remind us that limits on free speech were not adopted by government but by Parliament, and therefore represent the "will of the people."

Firstly, I don't recall seeing restrictions on speech in the party manifestos. Secondly, it was never put to a referendum - if you are going to appeal to democracy at least do so properly. Finally, the "will of the people" has often been downright abhorrent: a few centuries ago, hanging women for witchcraft was the will of the people. Executing apostates remains the will of the people in much of the world today. Mythical appeals to "will" are a non-argument for the morality or otherwise of an action.

Such celebrations of authoritarianism, however much they may be veiled in disingenuous appeals to democracy and the "will of the people," are precisely why we require a written constitution which places the individual above The State and enshrines freedom of speech in law. History shows how an elected legislature can trample the natural rights of the individual as much as any dictator.

The recent riots in the UK have raised a number of questions regarding the re-emergence of the racist far-right, the nature of our multicultural society and the impacts of mass immigration. Difficult conversations need to be had. Limiting speech, as Starmer has been so eager to do, precludes conversation.

Many have suggested that some of the views shared on social media have fostered an environment in which the rioters felt encouraged. The evidence suggests that this is true. The difficulty for the left is accepting the uncomfortable truth that this does not, logically or ethically, warrant restrictions on speech.

One man's hate speech is another's call to freedom ("From the river to the sea" a case in point.) What society considers to be groundless hate or acceptable belief also varies over time. Consider the following:

"Witches should be burned."

"Religion should be banned.”

As unsavoury as these views may be, both have been the majority view in various societies at different times, the former in our own. Democracy cannot therefore determine what constitutes hate speech: its definition is relative, our minds change. The expression of neither of the above views warrant any response from The State. In this case, both freedom of religion, and the freedom to criticise religion, act in concert with the natural right to free speech.

So, to be consistent the law must distinguish between words and actions. To claim words are violence (the use of physical force) is to claim 2+2=5. We have seen how words can lead to violence, but it is only the violence that can be legislated against violence can be defined, hate speech is subjective.

What to do with the keyboard racists? What to do with those shouting calls for jihad on the street? In both cases, the answer, for The State, is:

Nothing.

As individuals, we can use our own right to free speech to call them out. We can refuse to associate with them. We can exclude them from our social lives.

The State’s role is to lock them up the moment they throw a brick at a mosque or a church, and not a moment before.

Freedom of speech can be one of two things: absolute, or absent.