There has been considerable commentary sparked by the Home Secretary’s announcements in TV interviews last week of proposals being considered by Government which would ‘pre-emptively ban’ the circulation of extremist material online and in broadcasting.

Theresa May’s reactions came on the back of criticism aimed at the BBC and Channel 4 for allowing airtime to Anjem Choudary in the hours and days following the murder for Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. While many would contend that Choudary’s views are obnoxious, do they deserve to be censored in the name of national security? Is it desirable, as Timothy Garton-Ash puts it, to ‘erod[e] our freedom in the name of defending it’?

Kirsty Hughes, of Index on Censorship, rightly points to the failed attempts at censorship in the past, when in the 1980s then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, sought to deny the IRA the ‘oxygen of publicity’ by compelling voiceovers in TV broadcasts. Hughes said, “It did not make sense when we had actors speaking the words of IRA people in the past, and it doesn’t now."

Former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, appearing at the Hay Festival this week, declared the past measures "a great recruiting sergeant” for the IRA, reinforcing the counter-productive nature of measures designed to silence extremists.

The Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, in an interview with BBC Radio 4's PM programme, spoke of the need to ‘drive out’ bad ideas by openly challenging them in the free ‘marketplace of ideas’.

The need to keep the marketplace of ideas free and open is also the subject of a comment by former Communities Secretary, John Denham, who in The Guardian, spells out pitfalls of curtailing the parameters of free exchange writing that “If you set the wrong boundaries of acceptability there's always the danger of alienating potential support and actually feeding the seditious claims that "they want to silence you".

From evidence given by Charles Farr, Director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), to the Home Affairs select committee inquiry into the Roots of Violent Radicalisation, the ability to ‘drive out’ bad ideas is not as robust as the Government would desire. Farr told the inquiry:

“We are concerned about the activities of such people [non-violent extremists], not because they are illegal—they are not—but because they appear to go unchallenged. They are set up in a particularly systematic way and they appear very deliberately, and in a very well organised way, to target universities with significant numbers of Muslim students. We are not asking for that activity to be banned but we are asking it to be challenged and for there to be a degree of balance, which at present in certain areas seems to us to be lacking.”

Demos in its report in 2010, on the power of conspiracy theories too noted the importance of openly challenging those viewpoints that thrive on conspiracies. But if the actions of organizations like Student Rights and the newspapers that give their biased analysis news space are anything to go by, the paucity of counter-arguments in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is perhaps to be expected.

Of a project undertaken during Denham’s time leading the Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘Connecting Communities’, he writes:

“We knew this would include racist views but reasoned that the drive to extremism was only fostered by the sense that these views were being suppressed. The risk worked. Instead of consolidating racist ideas, it became the first step to winning trust and challenging extreme ideologies. Connecting Communities was dumped by the coalition along with the Prevent community programme, but its model of engaging community concerns may be more useful than Prevent's attempts to suppress them.”

Denham raises an interesting point about the type of individual attracted to extremist, anti-systemic positions, arguing that what is ‘crucial’ is the “need to give stake, voice and status to the vulnerable and alienated”.

It is a point which is noted in the Home Affairs select committee report mentioned above but one which has yet to be adequately addressed.

Timothy Garton-Ash meanwhile asks the very sensible question, “Who is an extremist? Is it just a political view you disagree with?”

Perhaps there is no better indication of the perils of subjective assessment on “Who is an extremist?” than the debacle of the cases fought by the Home Office against Sheikh Raed Salah and Dr Zakir Naik. Both cases demonstrate the dangerous potential for politicisation of this key question.

Moreover, the causal relationship between articulating extremist views and committing criminal or terrorist attacks is not clear. The answers given by Charles Farr to the select committee inquiry on its question concerning the proscribing of groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir were redacted from the transcript of the evidence session. What connection there is between holding a viewpoint and acting in an illegal manner is not well established it would seem.

Garton-Ash in true liberal fashion argues that extremists need to be taken on “in every medium” using work by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue on “how you can counter extremist narratives online with other online narratives and tools” as an example.

In the annual report on the Government’s Prevent strategy, there is an allusion to similar work noting:

"We have supported community-based campaigns that rebut terrorist and extremist propaganda and offer alternative views to our most vulnerable target audiences. We have worked with digital communications experts to help fifteen civil society groups exploit the potential of the internet."

There is not, however, any mention of the ‘fifteen civil society groups’ employed to this end. ENGAGE have submitted a freedom of information request to disclose the names of the fifteen groups but we are yet to receive a response from the OSCT.

Transparency over the ‘means’ used in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ battle will be as important as the ‘end’ of driving out ‘bad ideas’.

The Daily Mail and local paper, Louth Leader, cover cases of social media abuse and police investigations into inciteful and ‘indecent or grossly offensive messages’ posted online.

The Daily Mail reports on the case of Dave Lee who posted a series of messages on Facebook, including posts encouraging people to petrol bomb Muslim businesses.

The Daily Mail reproduces some of the posts written by Lee:

“If just one person petrol bombed any local Muslim business in their area that would be the end of them in one day.”

“F*** off you cheeky ungrateful s**m. Allah is a coward just like you. Two can play your game you Allah a*** kissing s**m.”

“Take a petrol bomb to the whole shop, light a fire and watch it burn.”

'F*** off now whilst you still can you cheeky vermin. Times are changing, I for one will fight back.”

Other posts were deemed too offensive to report but screenshots on the Mail Online website allows readers to see the comments for themselves.

Lee, when arrested by police for the messages, told them “It was just a joke mate, I didn’t mean it.”

Lee appeared before Bury Magistrates Court yesterday where District Judge Paul Richardson said: “I have to say that the prosecution was understandably reticent in reading out the remarks, when you hear them they are extremely offensive and inflammatory and I think I'm going to ask for an all options referral. I will not rule out a custodial sentence at this stage.

“You pleaded guilty which takes some courage but your situation is serious, the inflammatory comments that are published via a public communications networks like Facebook are serious.”

The Louth Leader reports on the case of Benjamin Flatters, who was arrested last week on charges brought under the 1988 Malicious Communications Act, for posting anti-Muslim messages on Facebook. Flatters appeared in court yesterday and will appear before Skegness Magistrates Court again on 12 June.

The Independent reports on the English Defence League’s plans to organise demonstrations across the country on Saturday 1 June, targeting “at least 30 locations” in localized protests following the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich last Wednesday.

The EDL have protested in a number of cities since the horrific murder in south London last week, including in the capital itself on Bank Holiday Monday.

The Leicester Mercury reports on the imminent arrival of the EDL at the weekend noting instructions that have been issued to participants by the regional office, “not to drink, chant, sing or wear political or group colours”.

A previous demonstration in the city resulted in a number of arrests with four men sentenced for various public order offences, including one man who was charged with criminal damage for smashing the windows of a local takeaway.

An editorial in the Leicester Mercury also highlights the EDL’s nefarious attempts to stoke tensions noting, “If the EDL had any credibility, they would simply go about their wreath-laying in private and mark Drummer Rigby's death in a dignified and solemn manner.

“Instead, they choose to publicise their demonstration in the hope of promoting divisions within our community. We have a message for them – it won't work.”

Meanwhile, Brian Reade in a column in the Daily Mirror today remarks on the exploitation of Drummer Lee Rigby’s murder by the EDL noting that the far right movement is on the wrong side of modern Britain. Reade writes:

“Remember half-Jamaican ­Jessica Ennis and Somalian-born Muslim Mohamed Farah giving us the proudest night of British sport ever.

“Those who see multi-culturalism as the antithesis of what being English is about lost the argument in London last summer.

“The only thing the English need a League to defend them from is extremist bigots of every colour.”

Trustee of Finsbury Park Mosque, Mohammed Kozbar, in an interview with local paper, Islington Gazette, speaks of a rise in verbal abuse experienced by worshippers at the mosque since the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last week.

Kozbar told the paper: “We have been the subject of attacks. We have seen a lot of verbal attacks since Mr Rigby died where people have been accused of being terrorists and have been sworn at and the police are aware of it.”

Denouncing the attackers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, and their actions Kozbar said:

“These people are not normal. Whoever has done this, they are sick or mentally ill. We have condemned this from the beginning.

“We don’t know these two people. They have never been within our community and we don’t want these types of people in our community.

“These types of acts are insulting and are an assault on our religion and all our community because they are saying they are doing this in our name and this is not true. This is not in our name and we condemn this.”