How do you insult someone legally?

 
From top left, clockwise: Angry man in car, dictionary entry for "abusive", Man being abusive, woman shouting at phone, student confronted by policeman

Campaigners want to overturn laws targeting "insulting words and behaviour". Just how safe is it to scorn others?

British public life has a lengthy and noble tradition of well-crafted insults.

Shakespeare's "thou hast no more brain than I have in mine elbows". Winston Churchill's comparison of Charles de Gaulle to a "female llama who has been surprised in the bath". Dennis Healey likening a parliamentary attack by Sir Geoffrey Howe to being "savaged by a dead sheep".

But not all barbs are quite so erudite. For every Churchillian bon mot, many more are made to abuse, intimidate and frighten.

For decades the law has sought to regulate the latter categories. In 1986, section five of the Public Order Act made it illegal to engage in "insulting words or behaviour" in England and Wales.

Winston Churchill Churchill: Master of the put-down

But a backlash has been brewing amid concerns that efforts to protect the public's sensibilities have gone too far.

A campaign called Feel Free To Insult Me has been launched to lobby for section five's repeal, citing a series of cases when the legislation attracted criticism and ridicule.

In one well-publicised 2006 incident, an Oxford University student was arrested after asking a mounted police officer if he realised his horse was "gay". Two years later a teenager was charged after demonstrating outside the London headquarters of the Church of Scientology with a placard declaring that Scientology was not a religion but "a dangerous cult".

Another case saw a pair of Christian hoteliers put on trial after they were wrongly accused of asking a Muslim guest if she was a murderer and a terrorist because she was wearing a hijab.

How to insult people

Scott Capurro three-way picture

Comedian Scott Capurro, renowned for near-the-knuckle humour, says:

"The whole point of stand-up comedy is to annoy people. If you aren't offended you aren't getting your money's worth.

"There's a social contract. When people come to see me they usually know what they are letting themselves in for. However, because comedy is becoming more mainstream, people who aren't prepared for that are sometimes there and it can be a problem.

"But usually the audience likes being part of the show. They like watching you dissect them.

"There are rules. It's never good to make fun of someone's appearance or of people less powerful than you. But the worst thing is to ignore people.

"I have to deal with hecklers. The comedian has to stay in control. I've thrown drinks, I've turned tables over, I've punched people in the head - but that's the worst route to take because it shows you don't have the verbal discourse to handle it."

None of these incidents resulted in a successful prosecution - charges against the Oxford student and the Scientology protester were eventually dropped, while a judge dismissed the case against the hoteliers.

Nonetheless, opponents fear that the public has become inhibited from speaking openly.

The campaign against section five has forged some unlikely alliances, with left-wing human rights activist Peter Tatchell backing it alongside Conservative MP David Davis and Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party. Also lending their support are both the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.

According to Tatchell - who was himself charged in 1994 under section five after his pro-gay rights group Outrage! staged a protest against the Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir - the law has created a "chilling effect" on free speech and the right to protest.

"In a free and democratic society, insults should not be a criminal offence," he says. "The law already protects people against discrimination, threats and incitement to violence."

Tatchell accepts, however, that repeal of the law would mean accepting behaviour widely regarded as repugnant.

In 2011 Emdadur Choudhury, a member of the extremist group Muslims Against Crusades, was found guilty under section five after he burned poppies on Remembrance Day as a two-minute silence was observed nearby by service personnel and their families. Choudhury also chanted slogans such as "British soldiers burn in hell".

Likewise, Tatchell accepts that repealing section five could open the door to displays like those of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, whose leaders are currently banned from entering the UK. The group has gained notoriety for picketing military funerals while brandishing lurid slogans condemning homosexuality.

Tatchell believes accepting such displays from a small minority is the price of liberty for all. "Freedom of speech is for everyone, including people we disagree with," he adds.

The law could be in line for reform. A Home Office review launched in October 2011 is examining whether the use of the word "insulting" in the law provides a "proportionate" response and a "necessary balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right of others to not be harassed, alarmed or distressed".

Peter Tatchell The campaign has wide-ranging support, from Peter Tatchell to UKIP, Christian bodies to secularists

Indeed, in Scotland "threatening and abusive" behaviour is outlawed by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licencing Act 2010 but insults are not. Under article nine of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order, a person accused of insulting behaviour is not guilty if he or she did not intend their conduct to be insulting and were not aware that it might be.

As it stands, anyone in England and Wales accused of a section five offence can defend it if they can demonstrate that their conduct was "reasonable".

For supporters of the current arrangements, it is not the law that is the problem but its interpretation by over-zealous officials.

Indeed, criminal barrister John Cooper QC argues that the fact none of the most prominent cases - such as those of the "gay" horse, the Scientology protester and the Christian landlords - resulted in convictions demonstrates that the legislation itself is sound.

"The issue is not what the law is, it's how it's interpreted, not just by the police but also by the Crown Prosecution Service," he says. "It's a matter of common sense. The statute is not meant to cover comments about the colour of one's shirt or one's hair."

Sticks and stones, nuts and bolts

Members of Oswald Mosley's Black Shirts

It says a person is guilty under section five if he/she:

  • uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour
  • displays writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress"

This offence has the following statutory defences:

  • person was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed would be heard or seen by person outside that or any other dwelling
  • that his/her conduct was reasonable

Instead, he says, the prosecution must demonstrate that any insulting behaviour has caused undue distress.

For this reason, Cooper argues, the anti-section five lobby has failed to take account of the trauma that can be caused by the most aggressive insults.

"The people on this campaign are articulate, confident people who are robust enough to shrug off insults," he adds. "But it's not them the law is there to protect - it's there to protect vulnerable people.

"To some, a particularly vicious insult where there is also threatening behaviour is as damaging as a blow to the face."

Unsurprisingly, much of the debate around section five has been framed within the context of broader disputes about the impact and extent of political correctness.

Additionally, a series of high-profile cases involving the conduct of internet "trolls" has highlighted the shifting demarcation of where free speech ends and abusive behaviour begins.

However, for barrister-turned-comedian Clive Anderson - whose cynical barbs famously provoked the Bee Gees to storm off his chat show in 1996 - a much older legal tradition underlies the issue.

"This is not a modern thing," says Anderson, presenter of BBC Radio 4's legal affairs programme Unreliable Evidence. "For centuries people's religious beliefs have been protected by the blasphemy laws.

"In more modern times things like people's sexuality have become an area where we have tried to avoid causing offence. But where the two collide we have a problem - and we've discovered that we've taken on responsibility for standing between them."

Insults might always be a fact of life. The extent to which we tolerate them, however, is an age-old conundrum.

 

More on This Story

In today's Magazine

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 384.

    If you suppress what people are allowed to say, you end up not knowing what they think. Strong opinions go underground but do not disappear, so resentment is created. When such laws end up preventing certain people being insulted, while allowing others to be insulted wholesale, there's obviously a problem. In a genuinely inclusive debate ALL opinions must be heard, otherwise it's not inclusive.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 383.

    The problem is that it's really difficult to set legislation such that the insults you don't like are illegal and insults that you think OK are allowed ... and of course the issue of who sets the level!

  • Comment number 382.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 381.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 380.

    Fuzzy #336:
    "324.DrJG
    [snip]
    'And as a Christian, I have always found blasphemy laws laughable.'

    As a rationalist, so have I. I also find christian, and other religious, beliefs laughable. Just thinking about some of the stuff believed by religious wingnuts can reduce me to tears of laughter."

    Ah well, if we ever met, at least we could trade laughter rather than insults, and not get arrested.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 379.

    I'm sorry Mr Power has decided to insult an entire species (neanderthals) by referring to them as thugs. He would do well to do a little research before expounding such rubbish. I suggest he also reads up on some of churchills other 'bon mots' eg the one to Lady Astor.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 378.

    The real issue that should be discussed is how to stop people inciting violence and hatred. People who insult others are making themselves look like fools, whereas the former is a genuine threat to society in general.

  • rate this
    +79

    Comment number 377.

    It's a strange one this. Over the past few years it seems you can be prosecuted for expressing an opinion - incitement to this or that. Although the opinions may be objectionable I really don't think it should be illegal. Being sent to prison for a rant on Facebook for incitement to a riot which didn't even happen. It just seems wrong. Freedom of speech means hearing things you do not like!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 376.

    @363

    We stopped saying "coloured" decades ago; and there are other laws to cover racial abuse.

    I believe that you are, very unsubtly, trying to insult our intelligence.

  • rate this
    +12

    Comment number 375.

    I see the top rated comment, criticising the BBC for arbitrary removal of comments, has been arbitrarily removed.

    Only serves to prove his point.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 374.

    Shame on you BBC. My comment followed your house rules. It quoted the sign that Peter Tatchell was prosecuted on to show how inoffensive it was. Liberty was so outraged at the use of the law that they defended him. The sign was less offensive than many typical online comments. The law needs to be scrapped as even when it does not apply the BBC self censors.

  • Comment number 373.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 372.

    Free speech is dead in the U.K.it only applys to M.Ps and some rich people above the law, you dare to say anything you will be called a bigot, or homophobic or worst so it is very wise to keep your thoughts to yourself that way you wont be on police records.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 371.

    The problem with insults is - no matter how insignificant they may seem to the person doling them out - the fact remains that the little bit of sarcasm that may make YOU feel better for getting off your chest, might just be the straw that breaks the camels back for the recipient. People commit suicide because of verbal bullying so let's not minimise that fact by calling it 'insults'.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 370.

    Brits are a rude people anyway. Just take a seat in a busy street or shopping mall and you can hear obscenities left right and centre. Use of the F word is common place in Britain today and many people will say its socially acceptable. We shouldn't need rules like this in our society but there is no denying that we are already a rude and ignorant people.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 369.

    We don't actually have free speech anymore, not when in many cases you are not allowed to tell the truth because it may upset someone.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 368.

    The BBC are terrible for this. This very board is moderated in case you say something bad about a celebrity or voice an extreme political view or use vulgar language.

    If the BBC has a problem with today's level of censorship and feel the need to write articles on it, how about you stop censoring everything?

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 367.

    Watching the children in the house of commons reveals a few insults, but they are immune to legal action while in parliament. However, there are millions of people who have a few of their own words for the current government, and oh would they enjoy saying it to their face.

  • Comment number 366.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 365.

    No-one has the right to not be offended. This is the price we pay for Freedom of Speech. Cheap at ten times the price.

    Anyway, no-one can offend you unless you let them.
    Don't let them.

 

Page 16 of 35

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.