i'm not a strict free speech literalist in the tradition of somebody like chomsky or hitchens, but i'm about as close to it as you can get to it without actually being it, and i do tend to go directly to mill in my arguments.

so, following mill, the only justification for state intervention on the question of speech is to prevent imminent harm. chomsky doesn't even believe in libel; i do believe in it abstractly, but i think the standard needs to be pretty high, and you have to demonstrate a clear financial injury - that is, you have to demonstrate actual harm.

i would reject the competing "offense principle" on it's face, and argue that people promoting it are perpetuating a kind of backwards, statist barbarism.

if you threaten to hurt somebody, that would be creating harm, but the threat has to be actually real. it's not enough to imagine that you might hurt somebody, or abstractly ponder hurting somebody - it has to be clear and actionable.

so, unless there were actual concrete threats to harm somebody, i would consider running one's mouth off about the prime minister or "muslims" on facebook to be protected speech, even if it offends virtually everybody. arresting somebody over this would be a breakdown in the rule of law, and an infringement of constitutionally protected rights. that person deserves compensation.