(Original post by Rs5644)
Well maybe it shouldn't be.A part of free speech is freedom to offend.If you are not free to offend then you are limited in your speech and hence do not have free speech.I don't know about you but I'd like to not live in a police state which police's everyone's speech.That includes not no- platforming controversial speakers.And if as you say it is a crime then why was nobody charged? Clearly they couldn't find anything to charge them over that's why the uni dealt with it.
In law, a clear distinction is made between verbal speech and written communication (articles, posted letters, electronic messaging, social media posts).
Private speech and verbal comments made before an audience/broadcasted over the television or internet are also treated differently.
Freedom of verbal speech is subject to legal restrictions as regards criminal acts/conspiracy, slander and acts of harassment.
I'm not a fan of no platforming, although I am not a free speech fundamentalist like Milo Yiannopoulos
There is a limit to most things and a clear line that can't be overstepped without leading to crime, anarchy or the worst type of antisocial antics.
I disagree with providing the oxygen of free publicity to the most toxic of individuals whilst everyone else spends a fortune of pr, paying convicted criminals to gloat or providing them with an opportunity to teach others how to attempt their criminality.
I don't work for the police or cps and have no idea why law enforcement didn't bring charges against the warwick students.