In the last week there were two twitter storms that hit the twitterverse. In a bizarre way they were linked, both having to do with the print media.

In the first, a hugely powerful law company sought and indeed gained an injunction against the Guardian, this was overturned when the twitterati gave rise to a torretntial downpour of tweets, the result of which was, in the end, the injunction was washed away in the deluge of tweets beating their metaphorical chest in outcry about freedom of the press.

In the second twitterstorm, Jan Moir of the Daily Mail wrote her usual column, by her usual column, I mean she gave forth of an opinion, her opinion, i.e. what she's paid to do. Now personally, I don't favour Jan Moir, I don't agree with a large proportion of her views nor indeed many of the views expressed by that august publication. In her column on the day in question, Jan wrote some petty, nasty and in, all honesty, not very nice things about that Steven Gately fellah from Boyzone. The twitterverse let old Jean have it with all the ferocity it could muster. Indeed, the Press Complaints Commission had over 21,000 complaints about the article, the most ever for a newspaper article, I'd wager that the majority of these complaints came from the twitterati. Stephen Fry, the tweet-god himself, either retweeted a post from someone else or tweeted for himself the address of the PCC. Jonathon Ross, also a twitter diety in his own right, retweeted the Stephen Fry post which would have got a few more involved.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Jan Moir is a saint, I'm not saying I agree with the article in fact I'm not really saying anything about Jan Moir at all, indeed, I follow both Stephen Fry and Jonathon Ross on twitter and genuinely enjoy both their tweets and their wider body of work. But doesn't it seem strange that on the one hand the twitterverse is up in arms and being very shouty about press freedom (an issue, in this case, I fully support) and on the other it's saying Jan Moir should be gagged and thrown into the twitter equivalent of the Tower of London because she's published an ill-concieved, poorly-judged, badly executed and controversial column.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have freedom of the press and then shout down anyone who's view differs form yours. either there's freedom or there's not. I vote for freedom, even if it means that people like Nick Griffin get air time, even if it means that 90% of the press publish articles slanted a certain way, a way I don't agree with, even then freedom of the press is better than the alternative.

I'm off to lay down in a darkend room with a cold, damp flannel on my head.

How good is he? Bloody, that's how good.

He surely does