Firstly he hasn't been sentenced yet and I haven't said he should be imprisoned.
Secondly, I don't like Frankie Boyle or the sex psitols the point of mentioning them is that at some points offence can be justitified for creativity.
I am not free to say and do what ever I like, I am not free to go to the Whitgift centre and shout obsecnities at the top of my voice, my local pub wouldn't be able to put hardcore p*** on the big screen over Sunday lunch time however much it might increase turnover. There are laws governing what we can and can't do which are generally social agreed but in some case enshrined in law.
I would defend Ken Livingstones right to say Hitler was a Zionist, I would defend the right of James McLean not to wear a poppy, I would defend the right of David Irving to deny the holocaust or Omar Bakri's right to call for Shari law. Personally, I would like to see these views discussed openly and on tv and the evidence they are based on tested. I consider it far better for them to be fully debated in public view then stuck away in places where it gains credibility and never fully appraised.
I won't defend the right of James McClean to go Warrington or Einniskillen shouting up the 'RA, I would not defend the right of David Irving to go to a Synagogue and wearing a comedy Hitler costume . The point that these are catergorical different to reasoned debate seems an obvious one. Count Dankula falls in the latter catergory rather than reasoned debate and dialogue.

I doubt if moderation is based on the singular personal view of anyone. I imagine that the moderator role involves making some decisions about what might or might not be considered moderate for such a forum. How would you suggest that this forum crowd will self-regulate without the intervention of a moderator?

It put it down to me being a relic of yesteryear aged 47 lol

It being a joke doesn't excuse him, if in my example James McClean took his girlfriends pug to Enniskillen dressed in camouflage jacket and balaclava with a small toy armalite and got it to run around excited when he shouted 'up the ra' or trained it to pee on poppies, we wouldn't be saying that's fair enough he is having a laugh . If ISIS hired Michael McIntyre to write some funny observational comedy about different behavioral quirks of infidels we wouldn't see it as OK.
The point about reasoned argument comes from responding to other post, offence can be justified creatively and academically if it leads to greater understanding. Additionally comedy has always been used to poke fun at those that take them self too seriously, and to be fair there are lots of people could do with being laughed at more regularly and I wouldn’t exclude myself or others on here from that list.
I wouldn't have complained I'm much too lazy for that , I just don't have much sympathy for him, he has broken the law and he has been punished for it, he knew it was offensive and by his own admission he chose the most offensive thing he could think of then posted it on the internet. He is not a martyr for freedom of expression or suffering for creative talent to borrow from Monty Python 'he is a very naughty boy' well not that naughty more just a bit ignorant.

The point about ISIS is to show that claiming it is a joke is not a good enough reason which Penge eagle seemed to be suggesting.

As I said earlier he was found guilty of sending by "means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" which falls under the communication act 2003 not for ‘Hate Crime’ which falls under the Public order Act 1986 , I’m assuming because it was understood that he didn’t intend to incite racial hatred. I’m not a lawyer and not sure if similar applies in Scotland and if anyone can shed more light on that then please do. Yes I do appreciate that I've just said this after applying in the case of Count Dankula that if you going to post on the internet you should have a basic idea of what your talking about.

Contrary to wanting curtail free expression I’ve stated I would welcome proper free and open debate on a range of views, my view is that is better out in the open being discussed and evaluated then hidden away where no counter argument can find it .

My views are subjective and so are yours, but my views are in line with the view of the Sheriff, who is representing the law which is based on precedent and legislation. The legislation comes from elected officials who are elected by the people. So while my views may be subjective they are based on fairly solid ground. You have every right to write to you MP, you have every right to campaign and march and I will defend that right. Should you campaign be successfully then I will understand my views on what is offence or not does not represent the views of the country as a whole and I will need to adjust myself to that.

Twice in the space of 6 pages you have posted ‘You might as well talk to the back of your hand with these people. They aren't worth it’ and directly to my post ‘Your opinions need pushback.’, am I generous type i will try to understand your intentions are a result of my intractability or your frustration at not being able to get you point across but it could also been seen as limit of my free speech.