For a time in my youth, I didn't understand the thinking behind the "Don't negotiate with terrorists" principle. I used to consider that the "Jaw-jaw, not war-war" idiocy coming from CND types had some merit. And I was drip-fed neo-liberation theology rubbish in school and church.
The construction was that some cause would have sufficient merit to require negotiations. Think in terms of the "Popular Front to Stop Grannies Freezing in Winter". Who would let grannies freeze on a mere point of principle?
Now, of course, I know that the principle is there because of coherence. It is a line that can be defended in an even-handed way. Instead of "the ends justifying the means", in the real world, "the wrong means invalidate any ends". It is tried, tested, and works.
And the same thinking must now be applied to law on Freedom of Expression. Beyond providing legal mechanisms for libel torts to be pursued, the state should not take an interest in this field. Where speech is part of the commission of a crime, there are the conspiracy laws.
There is apparently a significant minority of jedis in Britain, for example. So should Jedi-ism (whatever the hell that is) be now protected against religious hatred?
Is the Holocaust is protected against denial, should the Armenian genocide be so protected? The Rwandan genocide?
Is Islamic icons cannot be portrayed, what other areas must be roped off?
Plainly, it is madness that no-one may be offended. It is inconsistent if some are protected from offence, and others are not. However nice it is to offer protection to some, it CANNOT be defended consistently. The only principled position is that there must be no restraints on freedom of expression.
This isn't to say that holocaust deniers etc should be welcomed. They can and should be met with opprobrium by the body politic. But the state and the criminal law should stay out of the discussion.