I understand the thinking behind the legislation such as the one against incitement to cause racial hatred. Target those who promote terrorism and those who induct/recruit others into terrorism. However, if you have a society which believes in the right to express any sentiment or idea. How can you censor one thing and yet permit other things. I think if a society/democracy believes in freedom of speech then it must be allowed in its purest and most absolute form. Rather than such a right be 'managed' by legislation which deems certain words or terms to be unacceptable. Furthermore, while the words "nigger", "pakki" and others like it are repugnant. Should we not be free to use them? They certainly should not be censored anywhere and we shouldn't be so sensitive to them. Since for me, if we react in a certain way towards key terms then it only reinforces the power or effect of those terms. In addition, I imagine it's rather condescending to the recipients of such words who want to be treated equally as everyone else without others being sensitive around them. I remember the furore over the use of "nigger" in one of the Big Brother shows, perhaps 2008? I found it hugely uncomfortable to watch and rather patronising for people of afro-caribbean lineage. It seemed everyone had to emphatically apologise for it and stress sentiments along the lines of "it can never be used", "it is unacceptable" or "we as a society should move beyond such terms". All the reaction to it seemed a little forced and I must say very childish. If we come across such words then you openly challenge them. You don't censor them. You argue by criticising why such terms are anachronisms and not pander to a certain segment of society who do not need to be treated differently than the rest. What do you think?