"Free speech can't just apply to those you agree with," the editor of Spiked Online, Brendan O'Neill, once said. Politically correct speech does not need protecting. The United States' First Amendment exists precisely to protect the minority from the majority and to protect unpopular opinions from those who would silence them.

On March 2, French prosecutors decided that Marine Le Pen should be prosecuted for drawing attention on Twitter to the atrocities committed by Islamic State. They apparently decided that Le Pen's message, even if factually correct, should not be heard.

Her most objectionable crime, apparently, was to have distributed a picture of Foley's decapitated corpse with the tweet, "Daesh is THIS!"

She did not stage or misrepresent the facts. She did not share material that was doctored or false. Someone might suggest that perhaps she was attacking Islam or Muslim attitudes by distributing pictures of its activities. Even so, why should that be grounds for silencing her, prosecuting her, for stripping her of immunity, conceivably imprisoning her for three years and fining her €75,000?

In addition, what are people to do who may not have the resources to fight the bottomless war chests of the French Government? How are they ever to speak out without fear of legal retribution? Or is the real, secret, goal of the state to have no one who disagrees with it speak out?

One might object to publishing a picture of a decapitated body on the grounds of good taste, or that it would be painful for Foley's family to see. But should that be the reason for someone to face an exorbitant fine, crushing court costs, and a possible jail term? Le Pen was merely highlighting the crimes of a terrorist organisation that has already attacked France, and murdered hundreds on French streets.

Imprisoning politicians is, of course, a tidy way for a state to silence those who disagree with it. The former USSR under the KGB, and Germany's STASI, doubtless assumed it was simply a professional perk. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in fact, just guaranteed that in upcoming elections, his leading challenger, Alexey Navalney, will be unable to run. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey seems to find arresting anyone who disagrees with him a favourite pastime, with more than 113,000 – including possibly 150 journalists. Is this the model Western democracies would like?

Le Pen, in what increasingly looks like an empty attempt to silence her, appears to be trapped in a politically motivated prosecution. The charge states that Le Pen is allegedly guilty of: "Violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity."

In this new trend of censorship by prosecution – as in the similar political trials of Geert Wilders, or the increasingly severe government censorship in Germany -- mainstream politicians appear desperate to hold onto their jobs.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for instance, this week finally had to accept that "there are no-go zones in Germany". For years, politicians scorned the idea that such areas exist. Counterterrorism experts, however, such as Steven Emersonand policy analysts such as Soeren Kern, as well as many others, have been warning the public about them since 2015.

In Paris, alone, there are many no-go-zones, complete with an app on how to avoid them, despite the denial of its Mayor. Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Grenoble, Avignon also face similar social problems.

Marine Le Pen should not be prosecuted for alerting the French citizens to the dangers of an organisation that still threatens to invade their capital and murdertheir children.

If the opposition wish to defeat Le Pen, they are free to argue against her policies.

Otherwise one can only conclude that their objections are nothing more than playing politics.