Column: Glastonbury proves freedom of expression has limits

This year has not been without controversy.

Both Kneecap and Bob Vylan used the opportunity of their performances to say some things that most people will find difficult, offensive, and unacceptable.

It was pleasing to hear Emily Eavis disassociate the Festival from these comments, saying:

"Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the Festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.

"As a festival, we stand against all forms of war and terrorism - we will always believe in - and actively campaign for - hope, unity, peace, and love.

"This should never be seen as a tacit endorsement of their opinions and beliefs."

Which is great to hear.

But these comments were not a surprise.

Kneecap have previously called (and then retracted) a threat against elected MPs from one particular party, in the light of attacks on constituency surgeries where MPs like Jo Cox and David Amess were murdered by extremists while serving their constituencies.

I wrote to the festival organisers to raise my concerns about the scheduled appearance of Kneecap, highlighting the Local Government Association’s Debate Not Hate campaign, which aims to encourage respectful dialogue in public forums, avoiding language and actions which could incite division, hostility, or violence.

I was especially worried about the safety of all performers, audience, and public officials, which must be considered carefully in the festival’s decision-making.

With 200,000 people on a crowded site on a hot day, this is not a safe situation to stoke division.

Somerset Council has a really good working relationship with the festival organisers and all of the partners involved in the running of the event, which is what helps to make it one of the best music festivals in the world.

Along with other responsible authorities, we scrutinise management plans, as well as audit and monitor the event to ensure compliance with the licence and other relevant legislation.

The purpose of the legislation is to promote the statutory licensing objectives and ensure that the event organisers provide a safe event while minimising any adverse impacts on the local community.

This is mostly about the licensable activities, such as the sale of alcohol and the hours during which live music is performed.

Somerset Council quite rightly has no role in selecting the acts that are invited to perform or not.

The council also has a responsibility to ensure the prevention of crime and disorder, and we work with the festival and police partners to ensure this objective is met.

So, should there be limits on freedom of expression?

Philosopher Karl Popper called this the Paradox of Tolerance.

He said that if we tolerate everyone, even the people who are really mean and hurtful, then they might destroy a society in which we want everyone to be kind and respectful.

So, Popper's idea is that to keep society a happy and safe place, sometimes we can't allow the meanest of speech.

We need to stop the people who are trying to hurt others, even though we normally want to be very tolerant and accepting of different people and ideas.

In short, the Paradox of Tolerance means that to keep a place where everyone can be happy and safe, we sometimes have to say 'no' to those who are mean and hurtful.

This helps protect everyone and keeps society a place for all.

So the question we need to try to answer is how mean is it allowable to be before we should be intolerant of the intolerant?

It is a case of where we draw the line.