In the wake of the sentencing of Samina Malik last week, TMP columnist, Lola Adesioye, argues that the sooner we come to terms with the idea that freedom of speech and expression do, in fact, come with limits and consequences, the better.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the individualistic society in which we live today. Obsessed with individual freedoms and liberties, we appear to have lost the ability to see the causal link between our actions and their consequences. Young boys who carry guns fail to see it – they are just protecting themselves after all. The actor Chris Langham, jailed for downloading child pornography, was unable to see it – according to him he was simply perusing sexual images of children for his own research. And now it’s the turn of self-named ‘lyrical terrorist’ Samina Malik to have missed this vital action/reaction link.

Apparently Ms Malik is just a naive young woman, who thinks that watching beheadings of Westerners and supporting jihad is “cool”. She is, of course, entitled to her views. After all, she’s an individual. Shouldn’t we all be able to think, say and do what we want?! Aren’t we all entitled to our freedom of expression, our freedom of speech, without repercussion?

Well, no actually, we’re not. The sooner we come to terms with the idea that freedom of speech and expression do, in fact, come with limits and consequences, the better. After receiving a 9 month suspended prison sentence for possessing documents likely to be of use for a terrorist, I’m sure that Malik has been reminded of that today.

Personally I have no sympathy for the girl. Her argument that she was just seeking “fame” carries no weight with me. What does supporting the execution of westerners and downloading terrorist material have to do with finding your fame and fortune? Most people I know who are looking for fame are auditioning for Pop Idol.

Whilst a prison sentence would have been heavy-handed considering Malik did not actually commit any acts of terrorism, I am glad that she received a suspended sentence. Hopefully this slap on the wrist will make her, and others, think twice about what they get involved in – particularly when those things are illegal and potentially involve the murder of innocent people.

I have to agree with the judge, who said: “The Terrorism Act and the restrictions it imposes upon personal freedom exist to protect this country, its interests here and abroad, its citizens and those who visit here. Its protection embraces us all. Its restrictions apply to us all, whatever our personal, religious or political beliefs.” The operative word here is ‘restriction’. It may go against our desire to do what we please, but everyone is subject to some individual restrictions, for the benefit of society as a whole.

Some say that Malik’s sentence is evidence of terrorism laws gone mad; that it is absurd to prosecute people for their thoughts. However, to believe that is to simplify the matter at hand. I find Ms Malik’s thoughts disturbing, but she crossed the line by committing those thoughts into actions.

Samina Malik was not found guilty of a “thought crime”. According to the police, her scribblings were coupled with a ‘library’ of terrorist-related literature and materials. She claims to be an innocent 20 year old who didn’t know any better. However, her collection of literature – including The Al-Qaeda Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook – shows that this is not quite true. She may have been “on the margin of what this crime concerns” but on the margin she was nevertheless. Similarly, the actor Chris Langham did not only think about child pornography but took the step of downloading and watching it – an illegal activity.

This has nothing to do with Ms Malik’s religion. I disagree with Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said in The Times that young Muslims are being criminalised for “silly thoughts”. If this had been a white neo-Nazi writing about wanting to kill Jewish or black people, watching violent attacks on the internet and collecting material, I am sure people would have called for much stricter sentencing. Maybe Dr Bari is also missing the action/reaction link – Muslims can think whatever ‘silly’ thoughts they want, but they must take responsibility for the consequences of any subsequent actions.

The path to criminal activity can usually be traced back through a criminal’s history. Seng-Hui Cho who killed 32 students this year at Virginia Tech University had also engaged in some creative writing that, in hindsight, revealed him to be an extremely disturbed person. Unfortunately for those 32 students and their families, his thoughts – coupled with his collection of guns and his destructive actions – became a tragic reality.

Samina Malik must be relieved. I hope this will make her stop and think, and encourage her to be responsible for her actions. Fortunately, we Britons are all free – but our freedom has consequences. If Ms Malik had realized this before she probably would not have found her name splashed across the nation’s newspapers.

Lola Adesioye is a freelance writer who specializes in commenting on socio-political and cultural issues affecting the black community.