Maybe the problem was with his handwriting on the sign.

The UK doesn't have the same free speech protection we enjoy on the other side of the pond.

This is one of the reasons I resist my girlfriend's requests to move there.

A cult is a cult, and terrorist is a terrorist, and if you call them such, as a matter of opinion, it should be your right.

Even if you think a religion is a cult, and nationality/religious express is terrorism, you should be allowed to express that opinion, in words, or writing.

Writing patently false accusations as facts, should not be protected, it should only be protected as opinion.

This is one of my few problems with Britain. Their laws are somehow more f**ked up than our American ones.

Actually, in America you can be sued by someone who you spread false information about. It's known as Slander (or Libel) and has been used by some pretty big names for some large judgements.

Free speech doesn't give you carte blanche to run around insulting people. It doesn't allow you to use inflammatory or 'terrorist' speech. It doesn't allow you to make dangerous or threatening speech. There are a number of strong limitations.

In this case, there was already a ruling in place that said that "Calling Scientology a Cult is insulting and rude" So the police came on a guy who was being insulting, they asked him nicely to not do it...

HE GOT INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE.

I capitalized that for emphasis. Why do people think that if they argue with police that they're magically see the light and back down? Nope. Police follow the laws that lawmakers make whether they agree with them or not. It's their job on the line here. You DON'T ARGUE WITH POLICE.

So (surprise surprise) he's now being hauled into court. And YES, he needs a lawyer. The lawyer needs to walk in, say "He pleads guilty to breaking a law" and he'll pay his 50 pound fine.. or whatever silly punishment there is to 'insulting someone' in public.

Slander is something different then just expression an opinion. Slander is usually backed up by bogus facts. It's those bogus facts that makes it slanderous, because it serves as "proof" that it is the truth.

The cops are in the wrong, so that pretty much gives the guy the right to argue. If a cop says you have a broken headlight, when in fact it is not, you would be argueing the cop as well. Considering a false arrest is pretty much an suspendable offense for a cop to do, I'd say the cops are in a heap of trouble.

I thought most western countries had the same basic freedom of expression that we do.

Actually, you can say "Mark Hamilton is totally gay" as much as you want, even if it isn't true. Famous people (actors, baseball players, etc) and elected officials generally can't sue for slander (spoken word) or libel (written word) because they are understood to have consented to the risk of ridicule by becoming celebrities. They are making profit from promoting themselves.

They have an uphill battle to prove that whatever was said was known to be patently false, published with actual malice,and caused significant monetary damage somehow (an editor who hated Mark Hamill published that he had a drinking problem, and no one would hire him anymore)

A private citizen merely has to prove there was only negligence in circulating information.

Here are the (American) forms of unprotected speech (speech that the Constitution would not prevent punitive laws from being formed to block)

Incitement to imminent lawlessness -"C'mon everyone, let's riot!"

Obscenity - "You know it when you see it"

Defamation - explained above

Fighting words - Never really defined, but must be an personal invitation to "fisticuffs" that is "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation". Note that the Supreme Court has never found any speech to be fighting words, even flag burning.

True threats -"I'm going to kill you" The person saying this does not even have to mean it