Original:
Boris Johnson's sister joins critics of his 'tasteless' language

Generally we pay far too much attention to what the professional politicians think. Dragging their family members into the debate suggests an agenda on the part of the title publication. It's a weak assertion, arguing by association. However, like many otherwise throw away headlines, it touches on a significant issue: free speech.

Definition of tasteless:

"considered to be lacking in aesthetic judgement or to constitute inappropriate behaviour"
(Oxford dictionary)

Since we're talking politics and not aesthetics we focus on the second part 'inappropriate behaviour'. As you break it down it is clear that the definitions hinge on subjective values. In other words not saying anything other than 'I don't like what you're saying'.

It is a pointless headline other than that it prompted me to consider, once again, what free speech is.

If you are unable to express yourself you are not free. This is self-evident but not appreciated. Your self expression may disgust other people. They are free to avoid your non-physically aggressive expressions (sight and sound taken as non-physical). I suggest that people must use their own judgment and have the means to repulse physical aggression that violates their own free expression (that itself doesn't impinge, of course there will be 'grey' areas, that's for us to work out). Otherwise they are not free in any meaningful sense of the word. They may be many other things, happy, protected, secure, comfortable etc., but not free. You may find that opinion disgusting, in which case I would find your opinion disgusting. The most that can ever amount to is circumstantial evidence of intent. If you, or I, converted that 'disgust' into acts of physical aggression something materially different would be occurring. A physical act may require a physical response. A non-physical act does not require a physical response, despite what this, intelligent, man might have said:

in Schenck v. United States
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

You can falsely shout fire in a theater, but you can only cause a panic in me if you have any credibility with me (Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 spring to mind).

Fear, like it's physical expression, aggression, is not a sound foundation for a free society. It can never be completely eliminated, it must be managed. The best way to manage fear is understanding. Understanding comes from communication and communication, for humans, comes from free speech.

Free speech, like many other issues, will be used in form by Statists to deceive their way to popularity and abused in substance like the title Statist publication, among many others, is doing. E.g.

In the context of this relatively high stakes political drama called Brexit terms such as the 'Capitulation Act' don't even approach disgusting. At any level attempting to confine debate by characterizing such innocuous phrases as 'tasteless' actually reveals where so many of the real problems may originate. The fear of anyone to actually exercise free speech in their attempts to play the game by Statist rules (one of which is to never question the sanctity of the pantomime).

As I have mentioned before one reason we have the Royal Family is to serve as a Statist 'little red book' of accepted behavior for everyone to follow. If you only ever said what is acceptable to the Queen over tea, you would never say anything at all (job done).

As I've also said before, Boris Johnson, either consciously or otherwise, is being set up to demonstrate the 'unacceptability' of 'populism' (a familiar theme elsewhere). The UK may stagger out of Statist clutches of the EU in form, but it will be much to the chagrin of the Statists both within the UK and beyond who are predominately 'remainers' at heart. They will be keen to interpret 'lessons learnt' from Brexit in such a way that it ultimately supports the Statist impulse for centralization and control. That's if current events don't indeed result in a Humiliation/Capitulation Act, as they well might.

Once the dust settles we will still be left with a State. A little bit of Statism is no better than a little bit of slavery. Both are morally flawed. Not least because of the impulses against freedom (of which free speech is a vital part) that both imply.

(Frederick Douglass)

'Trivial' appearing headlines like this can in one sense help us to understand how politically impoverished we have become but, in another, will continue to help us appreciate the fundamental issues long after Brexit has blown over.