RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
Well in order to make out the offence the prosecution would have to prove you were using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour. If you were using what most would consider to be legitimate free speech the I would imagine the prosecution would be unable to prove threats or abuse. Insult is a trickier one and could cover some ad hominem language. But in addition it would have to be objectively insulting, not in the view of the audience but the Court. In addition the Crown would have to prove that you intended the insult or that you knew you were insulting someone.
And then there are defences - that you had no reason to believe someone would be caused harassment alarm or distress, or that your behaviour was reasonable. On the latter point free speech would have to be given some weight by the court.
So again, boils down to situation. If you are exercising free speech by knowingly hurling ad hom attacks of an objectively insulting nature on some poor cloistered soul who you have reason to believe might be genuinely harassed rather than a bit miffed, in a situation where you can't show your behaviour to be reasonable (because they are on public transport and can't get away), yep, you could be guilty. If you are offering calm protest or argument to a bunch of reasonably robust people who aren't trapped and you aren't pursuing I think they'd have difficulties.
Mind you I do think they ought to remove insulting as one of the ways to make out the offence. It is much too broad.
Permalink Thu, 31 May 2012 00:26:46 UTC | #944673