There has been much discussion recently of the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

The appearance of national flags on lamp posts has provoked a sharp division between those who feel it is a welcome expression of national pride and those who see it as a sinister signal of intolerance and even racism.

As is too often the case in our national debate, extreme positions are the ones that seem to cut through, but I don't find either absolute convincing.

The law says that you can't put anything on a lamp post on the highway without permission of the relevant Highway Authority and there are reasons for that.

The fact that these flags were put up in the dead of night demonstrates that those responsible knew permission was needed and didn't have it.

Nobody gets to break the law just because they feel passionately that they should be allowed to, even to express their patriotism. There is of course nothing to stop anyone flying the flag on their own property.

The opposite side of this argument are wrong too though. It is not a racist act to fly the flag of our nation.

The fact that some have sought to co-opt the English flag of St George as a symbol of intolerance and hate does not mean that we have to accept that is what it is, indeed I would argue that makes it imperative for the rest of us to demonstrate that it symbolises nothing of the sort -by being proud of it, not embarrassed by it.

Englishness is exclusive in one sense of course, but it should be inclusive of all who are English, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

If you are a citizen of England, this is your flag.

For that reason, accepting the narrative which suggests that displays of the English flag must be discouraged because they can only exclude or intimidate would be wrong.

I don't accept the use of our flag by some political actors to divide us, just as I don't accept the validity of their intent to divide in general.

The discussion about flags is part of a wider debate about freedom of speech and expression. In that debate, everyone is in favour of their own freedom of speech, but not always in favour of it for others.

It has often been said that you don't test your real support for the concept of freedom of speech until you encounter views with which you passionately disagree, and I think it remains true.

It is also the case that freedom of speech is not absolute, and could not be in a civilised society. Nobody has the right to say anything they like in such a society.

The criminal law restricts your rights to threaten or to incite violence. Famously, you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre to cause unjustified panic. We restrict freedom of expression in other ways too – from public nudity to preventing broadcasters from screening content unsuitable for children before 9pm.

All these restrictions on our freedom we accept as the price of preserving our collective freedom to live in the kind of society we want. More than that, we accept that if freedom of speech matters, within common constraints, then everyone's freedom of speech matters.

Although there is no right not to be offended and in my view there should not be, if some are hounded out of the discussion altogether by the speech of others, do we really have freedom of speech?

These questions are becoming more acute as more of our speech takes place in social media, where anonymity, brevity and echo chambers conspire to create an atmosphere which often inhibits rather than encourages true freedom of speech.

They are questions that are wider, and more difficult, than the flying of flags on lamp posts.