Let’s do away with this insult to free speech

[Jazzy]

As a former police officer and chief constable, and as a member of the House of Lords, I fully understand the importance of free speech. It helps to preserve the unique set of beliefs and values that underpin our society.



But I strongly believe that Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it illegal to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words or behaviour if they are likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”, can be used to undermine free speech because of the way it is framed.



That is why the House of Lords will vote tomorrow on my proposed amendment to this Act. If approved, it will see the removal of the term “insulting”.



The wording of Section 5 has been a concern since the passage of the 1986 Act itself. Although similar wording had appeared in earlier legislation, in 1986 the threshold was lowered to include anything “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. No one need actually be alarmed – such alarm need only be “likely” in the view of police or prosecutors.



At the time, Professor A T H Smith, now Cambridge Professor of Criminal and Public Laws, said: “Because of the potential breadth of the language in which the section is drafted, it affords scope for injudicious policing.”

Full article



Do you agree or disagree the term insulting should be removed?

 

[Evil Eye]

Maybe... limiting free speech is a little odd to start out with...

 

[thecostumedanceparty]

In some places freedom is speech is already gone.