Sky sources have learned the so-called pick-up artist Julien Blanc will not be allowed to enter the UK.
The decision to deny Julien Blanc's entrance into the UK has set the precedent that freedoms of speech and expression can be criminalised, if and when enough people sign a petition.
Blanc's comments are socially reprehensible and offensive to both men and women, but if we do not respect the rights of the offensive, we start risking the safety of any minority viewpoint.
Those upset by Blanc's remarks have the opportunity to push back in cultural and social spheres; they do not need to call on the government to ban things they find socially disturbing. Private event businesses can take after EventBrite and deny him platforms, people can boycott his events, and viewers can turn their televisions off when he is on-air voicing his opinions.
The market has ways of listening to the moral needs of its customers, and while it is not a perfect system, it can serve to bankrupt those who are morally reprehensible without criminalising them for non-criminal behaviour.
Surely, we must recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the private sphere taking away one man's platform to be noticed, and the state taking away every person's platform to speak freely without threat of punishment or criminalisation.
This ruling should not just be a wake-up call to public hysteria, but also a reminder of how flawed the UK immigration system is. The Home Office can legally deny anyone entrance to the country if their character or opinions are not deemed conducive to the ‘public good'.
This is Big Brother at its worst - 'protecting' the people from speech criminals, who are a danger to the moral good; let any who speak out be at the mercy of mob rule, and the Home Office.