Anjem Choudary Interview About his Trial

The transcript discusses the boundaries of freedom of speech, particularly in relation to supporting terrorist organizations like the Islamic State. The speaker defends their past speeches, arguing they have remained within legal limits and have been consistent over decades. The legal nuances of expressing support versus inviting support for a terrorist group are explored, with references to historical legal precedents. The speaker emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression and challenges the legal accusations against them.

What is the main argument presented by the speaker regarding their speeches over the years?

• They were misunderstood by the public.

• They have changed significantly over time.

• They are a matter of religious expression.

• They were intended to provoke.

According to the speaker, what is the legal distinction made by the court?

• There is no legal distinction between different types of speech.

• Expressing an opinion is the same as inviting support.

• Inviting support for a terrorist group is different from expressing an opinion.

• All forms of speech are considered criminal.

What does the speaker emphasize about their adherence to the law?

• They have been careful to stay within legal boundaries.

• They have ignored legal advice.

• They have always been on the wrong side of the law.

• They have frequently violated the law.

What historical context does the speaker provide regarding the legislation?

• It has never been used before.

• It was brought in for the IRA and similar groups.

• It was introduced recently.

• It was specifically designed for their case.

How did journalists reportedly react to the speaker's legal proceedings?

• They expected the speaker to be convicted.

• They were surprised by the legal action.

• They supported the legal action.

• They were indifferent to the case.