Freedom of speech is indivisible: Either you have it, or you don’t. Period! It cannot be limited without losing freedom of speech altogether. And in any case, once you start saying that this or that cannot be said, then who is to decide what is seemly? If we start limiting our freedom of expression in this manner, we will soon be on a slippery slope: We might well find ourselves in a situation as has happened in Khartoum just recently, a situation in which a teacher has been arrested for allowing her classroom children to call a teddy bear Muhammad. That poor young lady has been arrested for blasphemy!
BBC: The debate at the Oxford Union featuring BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving highlights fundamental questions about the limits to free speech.
Some protestors called for the debate to be cancelled, both because it might offend people and because it could stir up racial hatred.
But there are others who think people should be allowed to say whatever they think - regardless of the offence it might cause, and even if there is a potential threat to public order.
For some anti-fascist campaigners like Donna Guthrie, the fact that David Irving's views are offensive to large numbers of people is enough to prevent him from speaking.
'Racial attacks'
"Irving is a Holocaust denier, and giving him a platform is an insult to the millions who were murdered by the Nazis."
Ms Guthrie - National Campaigner for the group Unite Against Fascism - said there had also been a rise in racial attacks whenever Nick Griffin's BNP party gained seats on local councils.
She added: "Free speech is not uncontrolled. Speech does not happen in a vacuum. We know that when a fascist organisation speaks, there are real consequences."
In Britain there are laws protecting our right to free speech. But they are so hedged with qualifications that there is still plenty of room for arguments. >> By Julian Joyce
Mark Alexander
