by Julie Blackburn

Freedom of speech has always been a guiding principle of a free and civilised society.

We are lucky enough to live in a country where it is taken as a given and it is something many of us would fight to preserve.

By definition freedom of speech means the right to say things that not everyone will agree with and, ultimately, to ’speak truth to power’.

So what are we to make of what seems to be the increasing rise of extremist minorities who are so passionate in their beliefs that they seem to feel perfectly entitled to shove them right into people’s faces?

You may have heard ’Ham Sandwichgate’ on the Jeremy Vine Show recently, on Radio 2.

Jeremy was doing a piece entitled ’What makes vegans so angry?’ and his interviewee was an Australian vegan activist who calls himself Joey ’Carbstrong’. They were meant to be discussing why vegans have been harassing and abusing livestock farmers.

Joey, reported to be a former drug dealer and gang member who has spent time inside, began the interview by saying he ’wasn’t angry’, then proceeded to berate Mr Vine for having his lunch - a ham and cheese sandwich - on the desk in front of him. This, apparently, was offensive.

And so the interview continued: whenever a caller phoned in to express a view that differed from Mr Carbstrong, he shouted them down.

There was no attempt at any reasonable, intelligent or even vaguely factually-based discussion.

His attitude doesn’t differ much from the people who visited the island recently as part of the Abort 67 cohort to attempt to prevent the Abortion Reform Bill from being passed.

Their tactics included parading the now infamous ’graphic images’ outside the House of Keys.

It matters little what my personal view is of either Joey Carbstrong or Abort 67’s beliefs. It may not even matter that they both represent minority views.

My question is whether we have to have them pushed at us in quite such an aggressive manner - is that still allowable under the guiding principle of freedom of speech?

You might have thought that social media would be the ideal forum for some wonderful, interesting, considered debate but not a bit of it.

It is awash with fake news, trolls and a level of general ignorance on many subjects that is sometimes quite breathtaking.

Last month when reporting on a case of animal cruelty the newspaper was told that the police would not themselves release the name of the perpetrator because they did not want to be responsible for the treatment he might receive on social media.

I suppose it’s an understandable attitude.

Death threats over such matters are not uncommon.

And what it meant in practice was that, had the perpetrator not been named in open court, we might not have learned his identity and he would have had what might be characterised as preferential treatment over other criminals.

And this because his crime was one that attracts not only the understandable distaste of most of us but also spitting venom from those with more extremist views.

Social media, instead of offering a shining example when it comes to debating issues, has become the place where people feel perfectly safe to vent in much the same way as they yell and swear at other drivers from the safety of their cars.

And the real irony is that it really doesn’t work.

The more people shout and yell and thrust their beliefs under our noses, the more likely they are to turn us off completely.

And so everyone’s views just become more entrenched.

Is that really the place where freedom of speech was meant to take us?

What do you think?

Join the debate by writing to our letters pages for publication.

Email [email protected] or write to Opinions, Isle of Man Newspapers, Peel Road, Douglas IM1 5ED.

If you'd like us to print your letter, we need to be able to verify your identity. So we need your name, full address and a telephone number.

We don't print full addresses or phone numbers.