Question Author
To address Ms Hopkins first -
I believe that she has always held strong opinions, but that she latched onto the simple notion that, if you express an extreme opinion with the mantle of the 'voice of the silent majority', and add a snapppy media tagline like "I say it like it is ... just saying ... sorry but .." and so on, you can parlay a lucrative media career. All you need is a thick enough skin to withstand the hostility that goes with behaving like that, which Ms Hopkins clearly possesses.
The problem is, unless you are really careful, you get carried away with your desire to find even more outrageous views to express - whether they are personally hers or not ceases to be the issue - and you trip over libel and slander protections, as Ms Hopkins has, and the bubble bursts, with attendant legal proceedings, and loss of platforms, and income.
And to address the thorny issue of free speech, which the behaviour Ms Hopkins and similar raise -
Free speech is an enshrined right, but like all rights, it comes with responsibilities.
Having a view is not the same as having the right to express your view, to the detriment of society as a whole - that way likes anarchy.
This means, if I believe that all black people should be crucified in rows down Oxford street, covered in tar and set alight for Christmas illuminations, that's a viewpoint.
Is it a viewpoint that should be expressed publicly simply because there is a minority of people who would entirely agree with it - and I should be paid by a newspaper for writing it?
I my view, no it is not.
Yes that is an extreme example of the point I am making, but when Ms Hopkins started stirring up racial hostility against perfectly innocent people, it's clear that she was on that slippery slope, and accelerating down it at speed before due process shut her up.
I would not call Ms Hopkins names, and advocate that she is routinely blocked from speaking, that would be wrong.
But equally wrong is the simple process of advocating any and all poisonous and irredeemably horrific notions be expressed simply in the name of 'free speech'.
Because, as I said, with that freedom comes responsibility, and stirring up hatred and malice is in no-one's interest, especially if it abuses the right of free speech to do it.