Report comment

I am not convinced that it is an attack on free speech. Free speech does not equate to freedom from consequences. According to the SDT judgement, the twitter account she tweeted from explicitly identified her as a solicitor, so it is not unreasonable to consider that she was 'speaking' in her capacity as one. It seems to me that (assuming that is correct, and she did include the fact that was a solicitor in her profile) it's more similar to a situation where someone is tweeting from a firm's account rather than a personal one.

I agree with Anon at 10.44 that a lot of people find the diversity questionnaire inappropriate so I don't think the fact that her firm didn't do so is indicative of anything plus, in smaller firms, (such as the one Ms Daniels owns, they are never going to be truly anonymous as the sample size is too small, so it's unsurprising that people prefer not to complete them)

The tweets themselves do seem to be pretty unpleasant and in one or two cases, bordering on incitement to violence - thy were not simply pro-science or pro-secularism. I think if she had been simply criticising religion, (or specific religions) as opposed to advocating 'ridding the world of Islam', putting people into work camps solely on the basis of their religion or stigmatising people as 'useless' and 'unemployable' based solely on the fact they were wearing religious dress, then she wouldn't have been penalised.