Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1303 - Freedom of Speech Bill 2017 Watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    B1303 - Freedom of Speech Bill 2017, TSR Libertarian Party



    Freedom of Speech Bill 2017

    A Bill to amend the Public Order Act 1986 in order to protect the right to Freedom of Speech.

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1: Amendments

    (1) Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

    (2) Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

    (3) Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

    (4) Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

    (5) Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 is hereby repealed.

    (6) Section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 is hereby repealed.

    2: Commencement, Short Title, Extent and Conditions

    (1) This bill shall come into force upon Royal Assent.

    (2) This bill may be cited as the Freedom of Speech Bill 2017.

    (3) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Notes

    You can find the Public Order Act 1986 here and the Football (Offences) Act 1991 here.

    The case for the passing of this bill is a simple one: Freedom of Speech is the brick that preserves democracy. In societies where it is taken away or merely taken for granted, we see the rights of its citizens and way in which those societies function collapse. In our own, we are beginning to see this, as outlined in a recent letter to The Spectator:

    Those concerned over the ever-increasing limitation to free speech so aptly reported in Lionel Shriver’s recent article (‘The young oppress their future selves’, 21 October) might have their anxieties doubled having read the Crown Prosecution Service’s Public statement on prosecuting racist and religious hate crime from August this year:

    ‘We have agreed with the police a shared definition. This is wider than the legal definition [previously agreed]… to ensure that we capture all relevant cases:

    ‘Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or religion or perceived race or religion … the presence of any such motivation or hostility will mean it is more likely that a prosecution is required.’

    It is difficult to believe that Parliament, when it passed the original Race Relations Act, meant freedom of speech to be curtailed in such a Draconian manner. Has the CPS exceeded its remit? Orwell must be spinning in his tomb.

    Indeed, it is the works of Orwell that have been perceived for many years as an example as to why this apprehension to what was for many years the most treasured freedom in our own society can be so damaging. Yet, it has been ignored and forgotten, and in the midst of this growing shift in opinion we can see the state slowly moving its hands towards the extra powers it can gain, just as depicted many years ago. Let us stand up against the mistakes that have been warned against, and let us be a beacon of freedom and civil liberties for the rest of the world.

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    So the libertarians want to make it leagal to threaten violence now then?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot see a 3A to the public order act.:erm:

    I disagree with the repeal of section 3 anyway.

    And definitely disagree over the football one.

    Would support the rest though.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Could you clarify what s3A Public Order Act is?

    I personally can access Westlaw through my job but I think it best that MHoC members can access sections we intend to repeal without a super-expensive subscription. Accordingly, I propose we do not repeal anything where legislation.gov.uk is not up to date.

    If you clarify that the repeals here maintain a) Offences Against the Person Act and b) Protection from Harassment Act, and also address the issue above, aye. Until then, nay.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I cannot see a 3A to the public order act.:erm:

    I disagree with the repeal of section 3 anyway.

    And definitely disagree over the football one.

    Would support the rest though.
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Could you clarify what s3A Public Order Act is?

    I personally can access Westlaw through my job but I think it best that MHoC members can access sections we intend to repeal without a super-expensive subscription. Accordingly, I propose we do not repeal anything where legislation.gov.uk is not up to date.

    If you clarify that the repeals here maintain a) Offences Against the Person Act and b) Protection from Harassment Act, and also address the issue above, aye. Until then, nay.
    Having checked both Westlaw and LexisLibrary, guess what? No Section 3A of the Public Order Act 1986... There is a 4A, though, which is intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, I think the section 3A is a typo and Saunders’ intention was 4A, this will be amended.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Aye, I think the section 3A is a typo and Saunders’ intention was 4A, this will be amended.
    To you and everybody above, it refers to Part (not Section) 3A - the part which legislates against hatred on religious grounds.

    Additionally, the purpose of this bill is to make it legal to 'threaten violence' - the term cannot possibly exist in law without serving as a slippery slope and this is shown by the example in the notes.

    Aye, although I am willing to consider criticisms for a second reading.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Could you clarify what s3A Public Order Act is?

    I personally can access Westlaw through my job but I think it best that MHoC members can access sections we intend to repeal without a super-expensive subscription. Accordingly, I propose we do not repeal anything where legislation.gov.uk is not up to date.

    If you clarify that the repeals here maintain a) Offences Against the Person Act and b) Protection from Harassment Act, and also address the issue above, aye. Until then, nay.
    See my response above for the response to your first point.

    I have checked for you, these repeals maintain both acts. I hope to see your support.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I cannot see a 3A to the public order act.:erm:

    I disagree with the repeal of section 3 anyway.

    And definitely disagree over the football one.

    Would support the rest though.
    Football clubs would maintain bans over racist chanting, it would just mean the state would not enforce that - something that must be consistently applied if we are to pursue freedom of speech.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    Football clubs would maintain bans over racist chanting, it would just mean the state would not enforce that - something that must be consistently applied if we are to pursue freedom of speech.
    No practical change as a result of legislation means no legislative change is needed. To me at least.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    No practical change as a result of legislation means no legislative change is needed. To me at least.
    It is a question of what you would prefer as a statute - for the law to side with government directly restricting speech, or for the law to side with freedom of speech. As racism is perceived as abhorrent in modern society, there is no case to make that private employers and businesses would tolerate it more than is currently the case and therefore I believe it would be right for you - as a liberal - to side with the freedom of the individual.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    It is a question of what you would prefer as a statute - for the law to side with government directly restricting speech, or for the law to side with freedom of speech. As racism is perceived as abhorrent in modern society, there is no case to make that private employers and businesses would tolerate it more than is currently the case and therefore I believe it would be right for you - as a liberal - to side with the freedom of the individual.
    A change in statue that will not result in any real change is not a question worth considering.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    A change in statue that will not result in any real change is not a question worth considering.
    That is a worrying way for a Liberal MP to view the state.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    That is a worrying way for a Liberal MP to view the state.
    I'm not worried. Please don't waste any anxiety on me either.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    I'm not worried. Please don't waste any anxiety on me either.
    A liberal who isn't worried about the state?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    A good bill by the libers (minus the typos) we need freedom of speech in the UK, people should have the right to voice their opinions and not face punishment from the state.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 13, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What time of year is the worst for students?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.