On one hand I would fully expect the court agents to misrepresent reality in such ways - but on the other hand, since the world can scrutinise the activity, I would not expect them to do something so blatantly dishonest in plain view. I've had a look around for the court transcripts - are they available online?

I don't know the attorney general but I want to say that's a total misrepresentation of the law, if you're vividly addressing the media then I see no reason why they're gonna be retwisting the context and changing the perogative that's a totally infringing by all means.

Tommy, you have really done your part and I believe with the mouth piece from the crowd, we can win this case.

This post earned a total payout of 35.664$ and 26.815$ worth of author reward which was liquified using @likwid. [To learn more.](https://steemit.com/steem/@likwid/announcing-likwid-the-reward-liquifier)

Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law, some hate speech is protected.[253][254]
For instance, in July 2012 a U.S. court ruled that advertisements with the slogan, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man, Support Israel, Defeat Jihad", whereas to even think something like that here would have you arrested by one of the 900 Thought Police.Supporting Israel certainly means expulsion forth Labour Party, and being anti Jihad is infra dig.United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature), incitement,ncitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,glorifying terrorism,collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,edition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),] obscenity,indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[ defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[ scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,time, manner, and place restrictions,harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.
UK laws on defamation are among the strictest in the western world, imposing a high burden of proof on the defendant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

 > *Posted via @threespeak. This is a comment proxy account. The comment above was written by a 3Speak user that has no Steem account yet. To learn more about 3Speak visit our blog @threespeak and our website https://3speak.online. This comment was posted through 3Speak on behalf of: https://facebook.com/fredpride*