[RichardCoulter]

Generally speaking, we don't have complete freedom of speech in this country, or anywhere else that I know of and never have had for centuries. We can, however, be considered to have freedom of speech though when compared to places like Russia.

This is not a binary issue between allowing people to publically say whatever they want and disallowing them from saying anything. Like most things, a compromise is the better of the two. We had this for years and it worked pretty well until the internet came along and changed things.

It soon emerged that some would be intent on using it to upset and harm others, even those less fortunate than themselves, for their own personal pleasure. It should be noted at this point that some people who make inappropriate remarks aren't able to help it because, for example, they have a learning disability like aspergers (a form of autism) that affects their social skills and ability to express themselves appropriately.

The correct course of action with these people would be to talk them through why what they are doing/saying is wrong and the affects that their behaviour has on other people and to only use lawful recourse as a last resort. Others can help by not goading or encouraging their behaviour.

The first general approach to the issue was for site owners to police their users themselves through the routes of rules and moderation. The problems persisted and site owners were then asked to comply with a voluntary code of practice; unfortunately, this failed too, so it has been felt necessary to bring in legislation to deal with the various issues.

We are actually seeing some benefits already with some sites reviewing their rules and improving moderation, either through increased numbers, retraining or some receiving training for the very first time. It's a shame that this couldn't have been done voluntarily without the need for legislation, but it is what it is.

A site similar to what you suggest was tried a few years ago, but eventually had to close, even under the voluntary code of practice era, because it became so bad that the suppliers that facilitated their presence on the internet found it to be too intolerable and pulled the plug.

Those who wish to air and discuss views that most of society find unacceptable can, and will remain, able to do so in the privacy of eirher their own home or that of a sympathiser. This ensures that people ultimately have the right to a complete freedom of speech (providing that this is nothing unlawful, like conspiracy to carry out a crime), whilst not subjecting others to their remarks.