At first blush, the success of the No More Page 3 campaign does not look like a victory for free speech. After all, a thing that was being published, is no longer being published. The prudish censors have prevailed, right? Look again... Is the absence of naked breasts from Page 3 a victory for feminism, though? I worry that it is not.
Zuckerberg's support of Charlie Hebdo was questioned during a recent Q&A session in Colombia; specifically, he was asked why he has taken an interest in this specific incident as opposed to other terrorist attacks. "This was specifically about people's freedom of expression and ability to say what they want," he says.
The counter-argument is that we shouldn't decide what films we do and don't make - and what we do and don't say - based on the potential for someone to react aggressively. In it's own way that is a form of censorship. But if we wanted to make a political statement about North Korea, I'd like to think it could have been done with a bit more tact.
Yes, RT is bad, but maybe by exposing its partisanship and the many flaws in its approach to a wider range of people, we might be able to defuse some of its negative potential. If our arguments for liberal democracy were not good enough to stand up to this sort of naked political manoeuvring, that is the point at which we should begin to worry.
For making a few offensive, off-colour jokes about women and sex, Dapper Laughs has been chased off TV, off university campuses and off theatre stages across the country by a fuming mob of self-righteous commentators, feminist campaigners, angry tweeters and student censors.
If you think this is only a Scottish issue, you'd be wrong. On 21st of June 50000 anti-austerity marchers hit the streets of London and the BBC didn't produce a single word about it. By contrast in 2011 a pro-Austerity march by the Tax Payers Alliance which totalled 350 people was covered in detail. It's not only our BBC that is at fault here - it's your BBC too.