Hacker News Reader

Comment by smaili | Hacker News Reader

Is there a formal definition of what words are considered “swearing” or is it at the discretion of the officer?

It's at the discretion of a judge if the person declines the on-the-spot fine.

Judges waver a bit on this. Here's a blog post talking about the offence, and about a 2011 case: https://www.6kbw.com/publications/articles/section-5-of-the-...

I think, but I'm not sure, that the offence isn't in the word that is used, but in how the word is used. I think if he'd said "I'm not fucking doing that" he'd have been ok, but if he says "fuck off, I'm not doing that" he isn't ok. But I'm not sure about this.

It is a bit worrying that police so frequently use public order offences and I wish they'd reduce the use of them.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use "threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" in a public place. Interpretation of the precise meaning of those words is a matter for the courts; this has historically been interpreted quite liberally, but Harvey v DPP established the clear distinction between words that are potentially abusive and words that actually caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Broadly speaking, you're OK to swear in front of a police officer, but you'll get nicked if you swear at a police officer, which strikes me as a reasonable compromise between liberty and civility.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/175956/Public+Order/Section+5+Of+...

What about swearing at another person who is not a police officer? The law sounds like it prohibits that too.

It is a defence for the accused to prove—

that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or [...] that his conduct was reasonable.

The police aren't going to get involved if you use robust language at 10pm in a pub. They may well get involved if you start screaming obscenities in the supermarket.

I think the guidance (if not the law) to the police is that they have to tell the potential offender not to use those words, or "don't swear at me" first, and if they still continue then they can be nicked. So they have to know that what they are doing is abusive first.

In other words you can swear at the police but only once!

I don't think a list of specific words would be useful. Otherwise you could wish someone asphyxiation due to a foreign body erect in their throat and claim it's not swearing, technically.

Its not swearing though. You want people locked up for saying "please officer stop bothering us" cause its analogous with 'piss off'?

We have to decide whether expressing a (legal but unfriendly) sentiment is illegal, or only some wordings of a (legal but unfriendly) sentiment are illegal.

Actually we don't have to decide, and the police will be quite happy, its a catch-all law; they get to arrest anyone they don't like and the public get to live in a legal grey area where they are only safe if they grovel and plead, its a minefield, tell me again why can't we have freedom of speech?

The law is pretty clear.

>A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

> A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

> The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

This is all intepreted by the courts and they do push back against police misuse of the act.

Threatening, abusive, harassment even alarm are all superfluous words to make insulting and distressed look better, really, to answer my own question;

why can't we have freedom of speech? Cause we are a society distressingly terrified of being insulted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com