Consequences

Just to add a bit of information to the debate:

The freedom of speech in this case is granted through the European Convention of Human Rights. Well, locally too, but the EU law is the one usually used as it allows extra appeals etc.

The freedom of speech provision allows member states to enact legislation to limit this "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

The emphasis has been added by me. It would appear to be applicable here. The question, of course, remains whether these restrictions are appropriate or not.

"... the protection of ... morals .." That could cover almost anything! I see very bad things coming from this law.

Perhaps I should have started my quote slightly earlier in the passage; I have omitted the word necessary which is actualy quite important. The law states that when limiting under these provisions it must be necessary in order to ensure these things are maintained.

Therefore, the, eh, 'hero' of this story could argue that this is not necessary to protect morals. He could point out that even if the court feels the offence is reasonable and necessary, the sentence is beyond what is necessary and perhaps a fine would be more appropriate.

Whilst I can lay out this argument happily enough, assessing its chances before the European Court of Human Rights (or indeed the UK Supreme Court) is beyond me, however.