It seems that the case of the 'lyrical terrorist' encapsulates many of the defining obsessions of our age. An apparently angry, extremist Muslim, 'terrorist' material distributed over the internet, and an argument over whether some kinds of speech should be illegal. It's my view that, in this case the answer is a resounding 'no', and that in years to come we will look back on this case with bafflement.

Let's get one thing straight: I find Samina Malik's poetry pretty distasteful, even offensive, and I like to think that I'm a fairly broad-minded and easy-going kind of person. But the world contains no shortage of things that I find distasteful, and I don't expect anybody to be locked up for producing these things. And, of course, it was not for her poetry that she was convicted. It was for having downloaded various 'materials which may be of use to terrorists' via the internet.

I'm afraid that I can't help but find something comical in the nature of the case against Ms. Malik. Her poetry is clearly intended to shock, but not much more so than the majority of 'shocking' material produced by 'disaffected youth' over the ages. When I look at the case, I see a person striking a provocative pose, daring the world to be offended, perhaps driven by some sense of being an outsider or simply finding enjoyment in being so 'subversive' and 'dangerous'. This is not a million miles away from the way some teenagers flirt with the symbolism of extremism, or occasionally glorify violence as a means of asserting their identity. If it deserves anything, it deserves mild contempt and perhaps pity; if you so choose, you may even find it amusing. What I cannot do is find this to be a threat to myself, my society or my way of life. And, since it is none of these things, I cannot see a case for punishing an otherwise perfectly innocent person who has not, as far as we aware, caused a single instance of harm to any other person.

I'm sorry, but the 'lyrical terrorist' is not a terrorist, any more than Johnny Rotten was really an anarchist (or an antichrist for that matter). If most gangsta rappers had shot as many people as their lyrics profess, most of them would be giving Pol Pot a run for his money. Most 'emo' bands have a much less real interest in suicide and self-harm than their lyrics suggest. Talking about violent 'jihad' may be offensive, but it's not necessarily dangerous, and we risk making it dangerous if we treat it with a seriousness that it does not deserve. Likewise, possessing an internet 'terrorist manual' is a ludicrous reason for imprisoning someone. As a relatively long-term internet user (pushing a decade now, I imagine), I've seen these kinds of scares before. I'm fairly sure that I could find any number of 'manuals' detailing how to cause all manner of harm to others (many of which are simply photocopied and scanned army manuals), but possessing any of them would not be a good reason to send me to prison, would it?

Regrettably, I think the case was summed up by the judge's statement to Ms. Malik that "in many respects you are a complete enigma to me" - that much is unfortunately obvious. If he had perhaps been able to decrypt the enigma, he would have seen Malik's poetry for what it is: a provocative stance, and nothing more. Another person will be going to prison when there is no need, with no good consequences to come from it.