A BBC story on the issue of limits to freedom of expression in the wake of a play's cancellation in Birmingham, England following violent protests by some members of the Sikh community there.

It's a competent but not brilliantly insightful article.

An excerpt:

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist," wrote Salman Rushdie. It's 15 years since Rushdie's novel, the Satanic Verses, earned the Booker Prize-winning novelist death threats, but the question persists.

The decision by Birmingham's Rep theatre to call off a play after protests by the city's Sikh community turned violent at the weekend, has reignited the debate on what, if any limits, should govern freedom of speech.

Only last week, the comedian Rowan Atkinson led a call defending "the right to offend", against government plans to outlaw incitement to religious hatred.

Atkinson argues the law would force "creative thinkers" to bite their tongue, and so produce a "veneer of tolerance concealing a snakepit of unaired and unchallenged views".

In November, the killing of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Holland appeared to highlight the pressures on free speech in a multicultural society. Van Gogh had recently made a film accusing Islam of promoting violence against women, and the man charged with his murder is thought to have radical Islamic links.

There can be no question that one's right to be offensive and the absolute right to free speech are two sides of the same coin.

But in Britain, as in most countries, the absolute right to say whatever comes into one's head is an illusion. There are rules to limit what can be said.