The police have had to warn the press against publishing anything else politically sensitive which could damage the prospects of UK as a whole . Is this an outrageous challenge to our treasured entitlement to free speech? This is as a result of the British Ambassador To America resigning this week as a result of his classified report being leaked to the press. Should the press be allowed to decide what to publish under the guise of free speech? If so should anyone be held accountable for the ramifications of press profiteering from apparently saleable digital print? The mere fact that the press stand to profit causes a conflict of interest in the decision of what is of public interest and what is just saleable. Therefore the politically correct mask of free speech supposedly allowing the press to print what they want is just that. A fallacy. In this case information was leaked that was protected by the Official Secrets Act and therefore the law was broken. The press then profited from the proceeds of breaking the law and published something that many people have said many times before and in so doing made it impossible for the ambassador to continue in his current role thus forcing his resignation (nothing to do with conservative leadership candidates supporting him or not -and indeed supporting him showed no knowledge of the fact he was no longer able to fulfil his role) as well as damaging the relationship between Britain and the USA at a critical time in Brexit. It achieved nothing positive and only destroyed just for some inches of saleable digital print. This is an example of all that is bad in today's press and shows they are not worthy of the privilege of free speech or even close to it. Indeed we argue that free speech as it stands only serves to challenge and weaken structure and order as it is usually inflammatory and emotion ridden which makes logical discussion and consensus a scientific impossibility. Would a corporation or indeed the military function with free speech ? Of course not. They would be weakened immeasurably . They function with clear identity structure and hierarchy . We say that free speech is important but only in specific well defined forums for rare people specifically engaged in bettering society with nothing to gain from it apart from the good that they do. Indeed an excellent example of this was the Court Jester who's job it was to say exactly what he though of the King or Queen and even ridicule them for it. The purpose being to remind them that they were human and fallible and not divine.