My main reason for chiming in was in response to Reuben, who offered a more nuanced take on Cleese, honouring his legacy and lamenting this move to GB News, rather than simply parroting the rather tired "angry white man" mud-slinging (which his title misleadingly suggested). However poorly expressed, I believe Cleese does have a point about the chilling effect. I also wanted to state as much, despite having never watched GB News.

As for the hoary old freedom of speech/freedom from consequences argument, I rather think it depends what you mean by consequences. I do believe in most cases, yes, there should be freedom from consequences, because the alternative is fascism (that alternative is depressingly exhibited in various theocratic and political dictatorships around the world). However, someone's freedom to express the kind of vile scenario you mention doesn't mean I have to listen to/watch it. But I would support their right to express it, however much I might hate it.

I believe there is a fairly common sense line between free speech and hate speech, and the test is incitement. "I hate what Tom says" is different to "I hate what Tom says, so let's all go and burn his house down."

Regarding the increasingly alarming rich/poor divide you bring up, I do agree with you on that front. It's got ridiculous. Those in power have been there far too long. (I have no political allegiance. My own view of governments, whether Labour, Conservative, or anything else, is that they may start with good intentions, but they are invariably power-crazed, and sooner or later they are corrupted. They are like nappies; a functional necessity that needs changing regularly, or they stink. Therefore, it is high time for a swing away from the Conservatives.)