 Logs on to Twitter. The thin skinned, hard left, gender ambivalent, snowflake, metropolitan elitist, uncivil, unruly, thugs have gone too far. Backed up by biased liberal media, there's a war being waged on campuses against free's peach. They've turned our beloved national institutions into bastions of woke ideology. Senator Joseph McCarthy's ruthless hunt for reds under the beds in the 1950s. Mary Whitehouse's 1970s crusade against gay Jesus. Margaret Thatcher's project of oxygen deprivation vis-a-vis dissident Republicans in the 1980s. Ronald Reagan's ban on journalists during the American invasion of Grenada. George W. Bush's blanket surveillance powers enshrined in the Patriot Act of 2001. And the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introducing a statutory obligation to monitor academic expression in British universities in order to prevent people getting joined into terrorism. The real threat to free speech doesn't come from authoritarian governments or the security services, not up. It's from the campus KPG, the student union Star-C and the liberal left legions of doom on social media. And the last remaining sword and shield of civil liberties. Conservatives of both a small and big C variety. Last week, columnist and associate editor-act will let Toby Young launch the free speech union. According to Young, there is no doubt that free speech is in crisis and academic freedoms are particularly imperiled with an alleged 60% of Brexit-supporting students feeling uncomfortable to express that view in front of classmates. But at prices ranging from 25 to 250 pounds a year, nobody said freedom of speech came for free. The FSU will help crowdfund legal fees for people wishing to contest accusations of hate crimes and will leap to your defence on Twitter if you happen to attract the ire of leftist shit posters. There are of course tensions between absolute freedom of speech and various other rights and protections. Some of these tensions are fairly uncontroversial. Liable, data protection, yelling fire in a crowded little to thin out the queue. But others are a little more... One thing that the free speech absolutists love to quote out of context is a bit of the CPS's and police's definition of hate crime. Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. What gets missed out is that the CPS is pretty clear that entertaining a hostile point of view isn't itself a criminal matter. It's when hostility against a protected category is accompanied by behaviour which includes incitement to hatred, a breach of the communications act, intimidation, harassment, vandalism and all violence. That doesn't necessarily mean that every allegation or investigation is made in good faith or is even a particularly good use of time. But it does mean that the threshold for prosecution is set a fair bit higher than, in my opinion, your view sucks. So you admit it. Hate speech measures are just legislative weapons to be wielded by the left against opinions that it deems offensive and unawoken, distasteful. Not really. In the past six years reported hate crimes have doubled to 103,400. But in the same time period, the number of suspects being charged has fallen from one in four to fewer than one in ten. What's more, despite our near permanent state of moral panic regarding the effects of trans, progressive, ethnic over sensitivity driving a culture of censorship, there's not much evidence suggesting that there's been a subsequent muscling of the press. Last year the Centre for Media Monitoring found that of 10,000 clips or print pieces, 59% of all articles and 43% of all broadcasts associated Muslims with negative behaviours. And as for coverage of trans issues, we've got a media culture which for the most part operates in a way which is completely divorced from how trans people view their own experiences. According to research from King's College London, 78% of trans people thought that coverage about trans people was inaccurate. And this problem of distorted representation has real-world consequences. Research from Stonewall reports that in the last 12 months, 12% of trans people were assaulted by a colleague or customer in the workplace, and two in five have experienced a hate crime due to their gender identity. Okay, so that's bad, but what about wound-toting 100% chromosomal, authentic, genuine, except no substance, real McCoy, adult human women being hounded out of their jobs for a sincere belief in the gospel of GCSE biology? Look, neither the CPS, the GRA, RSPCA or NAACP are going to stop you from holding or expressing the belief that all there is to womanhood is menstruation. I mean, it's a little weird, but nobody is going to stop you. Oh, let's take the case of Maya Force data, whose contract at Think Tank wasn't renewed after a court found that anti-trans views aren't considered protected characteristics by the Equalities Act. It's one thing to hold transphobic views, or even campaign against the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. But it's another to argue that these views trump the rights of trans people with a gender recognition certificate and that you can misgender trans people based on an absolutist belief in biological sex. So basically, freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom to discriminate in ways which are contrary to the law. Sorry about it. What about Andrew Savisky? Look, man, I don't know what to tell you. I think most people think you shouldn't work for the government if you think working-class girls should be forcibly sterilized. And if you're still that wound up about genuine attacks on freedom of expression, go campaign against prevent. If you want to have your free speech protected for half the price of Tobian, go to www.navaramedia.com forward slash support and pledge as much money as you have. No one like this channel, otherwise Western civilization falls.