• Campaigners say Public Order Act is unclear and has resulted in string of controversial arrests
  • Groups join forces to have ‘insulting words or behaviour’ phrase removed from legislation
  • Former shadow home secretary David Davis: 'Nobody likes to be insulted, but nor does anyone have a right not to be insulted'

By James Chapman

PUBLISHED: 17:37 EST, 15 May 2012 | UPDATED: 04:00 EST, 16 May 2012


Reform: Campaign groups have urged Home Secretary Theresa May to modify the controversial Public Order Act

Reform: Campaign groups have urged Home Secretary Theresa May to modify the controversial Public Order Act

Theresa May is being urged to reform a controversial law which bans ‘insulting words or behaviour’ amid mounting evidence that it is strangling free speech.

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors to arrest Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology, gay rights campaigners and even students making jokes.

Currently, Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’, but what constitutes ‘insulting’ is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Human rights campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the ‘insulting words or behaviour’ phrase removed from the legislation, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, a leading campaigner for civil liberties, said reform was ‘vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today’.

‘There is a growing list of examples where the law against using “insulting” language has led to heavy-handed action by police and prosecutors. It is not only distressing for the individuals concerned, it constitutes a threat to Britain’s tradition of free speech,’ he said.

‘Of course nobody likes to be insulted, particularly in public, but nor does anyone have a right not to be insulted. Freedom of speech includes the right to criticise, to ridicule and to offend. It is not the job of the police and the courts to prevent us from having our feelings hurt.

‘The solution is simple: The law needs to change. The word “insulting” should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act. This would provide proportionate protection to individuals’ right to free speech, while continuing to protect people from threatening or abusive speech.’

A poll by ComRes, commissioned by campaigners, found 62 per cent of MPs believe it should not be the business of Government to outlaw ‘insults’. Only 17 per cent of MPs believe removing the ‘insult’ clause would undermine the ability of the police to protect the public.

In an unlikely alliance, the Christian Institute is joining forces with the National Secular Society to back the campaign, because both organisations are committed to free speech and open debate.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: ‘Britain’s historic civil liberties were often hammered out amid controversy over freedom to preach without state interference. Christians know first hand why free speech is precious and this is why the Christian Institute is pleased to join people across the political and philosophical spectrum to help bring about this simple but important change.’

Madness: An Oxford University Student was locked up after he asked a policeman: 'Do you realise your horse is gay?'

Madness: An Oxford University Student was locked up after he asked a policeman: 'Do you realise your horse is gay?'

Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said: ‘Secularists, in defending free expression, must ensure that the law is fair to everybody and argue equally for the right of religious and non-religious people to freely criticise and exchange opinions without fear of the law, unless they are inciting violence. Free speech is not free if it is available only to some and not others.’

Others backing the campaign include Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association and the Peter Tatchell Foundation. Mr Tatchell, a prominent gay rights advocate, said Section 5 was a ‘menace to free speech and the right to protest’. He added: ‘The open exchange of ideas – including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas – is a hallmark of a free and democratic society.’

In October, Home Secretary Mrs May launched a consultation on the Public Order Act, including whether the word ‘insulting’ in Section 5 strikes the right balance between freedom of expression and the right not to be harassed, alarmed or distressed. The consultation closed four months ago, but the Government has yet to set out its views.

Here's what other readers have said. Why not debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

It is a ridiculous law that includes 'Insulting' in a list of proscribed activities. Apart from the fact that an insult is an abstract idea that means different things to different people even varying with the tone of voice and time of day it is so vague as to be meaningless. A perceived insult to one person could be taken as a complement to someone else for no better reason than it is an almost undefinable abstract form of speech. We cannot, and should not even attempt to legislate on human speech nuances let alone try to pin on people a criminal conviction that arises from just another opinion. Incitement is a whole different ballgame that has tangible outcomes and can be dealt with as facts.

Report abuse

"No one has the right to insult someone under the disguise of freedom of speech. Insulting do not necessarily holds any weight towards freedom of speech it rather indignifies the purpose of the democratic right to express and severes the basic human law. Rather, freedom speech is to expose injustices and not inflict injustices. Removing the word 'insulting ' from the Act will jeapordise a stable and cohesive society." Wrong on so many levels. Who decides what is "insulting"? You? Me? The politicians? Sooner or later everything could be deemed "insulting" by someone and then we lose the freedom to express any opinion. And, the only way repealing this stupidity will jeopardise stability and societal cohesion is if that society is all of one mind about everything, religion, law, culture, creed. Is that really what you want? A society where everyone thinks and acts the same? The politicians would love that - the ones that got voted in anyway!!

Report abuse

No one has the right to insult someone under the disguise of freedom of speech. Insulting do not necessarily holds any weight towards freedom of speech it rather indignifies the purpose of the democratic right to express and severes the basic human law. Rather, freedom speech is to expose injustices and not inflict injustices. Removing the word 'insulting ' from the Act will jeapordise a stable and cohesive society.

Report abuse

So why shouldn't someone who counsels and encourages others to violence, riot or terrorism not be held to account as well? So many comments seem to be stating that only the person that commits the act should be punished. I'll take freedom of speech here in the U.S over whatever it is the Brits have.

Report abuse

Whether the campaigners are or wrong. Ms May will not do act either way. That might mean she has to do some work, and justify her existence

Report abuse

When this legislation came in it was used very sparingly because policing was carried out by grown ups who were experienced in dealing with the public in all it's forms and moods. That experience was gained by officers walking the beat which entailed meeting the public and being expected to handle any situation they were faced with. Now compare that with the college boys and girls who never walk the streets never interact with the public in the traditional way. In addition to that they are 'led' by fast track fliers who have hid and ducked and dived to avoid any possible impediment to their rapid promotion. Sec 5. is handy to deal with an individual as a last resort when after a 'serious word in his ear' still refuses to desist. Not as a first resort when an incapable inexperienced officer can't cope.

Report abuse

Don't you think it's quite insulting to pretend we ever had or ever will have free speech?

Report abuse

"Freedom of speech includes the freedom to state that which others find offensive, provided it does not tend to provoke violence". I disagree with the latter part of the sentence. Why should any civilised person respond to free speech with violence? Everyone should be allowed to say anything-anything- and it is the civic duty of anyone listening to respond with argument not violence. If they do respond with violence then they must suffer what the law prescribes for such violence. Limited Free Speech is not Free Speech.

Report abuse

Bring back common law and toss out all that mamby pamby nannying nonsense. People who advocate reduction in free speech are offensive in themselves by what they are doing in that regard.- Annie Linux, Sheffield, 16/5/2012 18:53 --- I entirely agree, but many politicians and many police don't want common law because at its heart is the notion that without a victim there can't be a crime. When so many of our laws criminalise victimless acts, and are based on ideology not degree of harm, it would take a miracle (or revolution) to return to a point where common law holds sway. But just think if it did - it would be much easier to support the actions of the police, wouldn't it?

Report abuse

Bring back common law and toss out all that mamby pamby nannying nonsense. People who advocate reduction in free speech are offensive in themselves by what they are doing in that regard.

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.