Facebook is a private corporation and can censor (if that is the right word) any information it chooses. Are liberties and freedoms-of-speech as protected in our constitutions are not affected as this applies only to censorship of speech by governments.

Also, Cameron as Prime Minister did not “order” Facebook to do anything (which would be government censorship), he simply *asked* Facebook to do the tasteful thing and remove the page, an request which has absolutely no legal or constitutional implications whatsoever, knowing full well that, as a private corporation (of another country, mind you!) Facebook is completely within its rights to ignore or comply. Therefore, any discussion about Cameron’s, and his government’s, commitment to freedom of speech is totally irrelevant in this case.

What worries *me* are the people who thought this issue was a serious threat to personal liberty. are people entrusted with a vote, and who have perhaps some small or larger influence on how others people vote in elections; however, they display a serious lack of knowledge & analytical skills with regard to a basic political issue.

I wish people would take the time to think things through more clearly and indulge in less of the biased, knee-jerk reactions that are sadly all too common in grassroot political debates these days.

But as Andy Coulson is an ex tabloid hack FB is a useful idiot to deflect attention away from the tabloids eh!