Free speech means we should all have a say Now, you might think it is right to muzzle such people because, in reality, they just don't like gays and are hiding their disapproval behind a spurious religiosity. In some cases that may be true, but it is not the issue here: this is about free speech. Just as gays are entitled to extol their own sexual identity, so people who take another view, on whatever grounds, should be allowed to say so, shouldn't they? That is clearly a controversial statement. Yet people who have lived as heterosexuals and repressed their homosexuality are praised when they "come out." Is the alternative, however unlikely, not possible? And even if it isn't, why can't you say that it might be? None the less, the CIT poster was banned by Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, which is why the matter is going before the courts this week. Dr Mike Davidson, a director of the trust, who describes himself as "ex-homosexual," says he has been denied the freedom to express his views on the legitimacy of therapy for those dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction. He certainly has a case: if Stonewall can have their say, then why can't his organisation? This is by no means an isolated affair. Official disapproval, even the criminalisation, of opinions that a few decades ago were mainstream attitudes poses a significant threat to free speech in this country. After all, who is to decide what is the "correct" view to hold? In this case it was Mr Johnson, who called the CIT poster "clearly offensive." He added: "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance." However, this tolerance does not, it would appear, extend to free speech. Once you start to shut people up for expressing opinions that are not officially approved then you are on a very slippery slope. Transport for London might have taken the view that the Christian poster was offensive, but the same could be said of the Stonewall campaign. A few years ago, there was another bus‑based spat, this one between atheists and believers over whether God exists. Both sides were allowed their say, though the humanist poster, "There's probably no God," left open the possibility that there might be, just in case. Imagine if someone - Boris - had taken the decision that only the atheist poster could run, on the grounds that the scientific evidence of a deity could not be produced. There would have been justifiable outrage. There is an argument that the CIT poster served to reinforce prejudice against homosexuals by implying they can be "cured." But, as Dr Davidson said on the Today programme on Monday, people who say they no longer want to live as gays are being accused of "internalised homophobia" when they are merely choosing their own sexual identity. Isn't that what the gay rights movement was all about? We are in danger of replacing one brand of narrow-mindedness with another. Increasingly, the courts are being dragged into disputes between people who hold different opinions in what is really an attempt to close down debate on particular subjects. This is the very antithesis of free speech and unless there is an attempt to stir up hatred and violence, the fact that some people may dislike or object to what others say should not be a matter for the law, or for official censorship. Philip Johnston is the author of 'Feel Free to Say It," to be published by Civitas next month