A reader writes:
I have to disagree with you on this one, and not just because I think we have fundamentally different ideas over what free speech should be. Emdadur Choudhury was (and is) a public nuisance, and he was causing a public nuisance, as well as possibly inciting other people. Thus he got fined about 50 quid, and 25 quid more for costs (i.e. wasting the court's time). Seems an excellent compromise to me between your Westoboro lovin' SCOTUS and those in the Sun who would jail someone for speaking their mind. It's reasonable justice, and puts UK justice in a good light I would say.
Note the situation at University of California, Irvine, where college students are facing criminal charges for non-violent interruptions to a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States. I heard about this story on NPR yesterday and was pretty troubled. Unless they are making similar charges for other non-violent outbursts at public events, it does suggest that personal opinions or fears about the particular protesters are pushing the District Attorney to bring criminal charges.