Exactly how thick-skinned do local politicians need to be? Nicholas Dobson looks at recent case law
- For a conviction under s 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a message must not only be ‘grossly offensive’ but also intended to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or (an)other(s).
- Special tolerance may be required for speech on political issues.
Freedom of expression is ‘one of the essential foundations’ of a democratic society. Says who? The European Court of Human Rights, in Handyside v the United Kingdom (5493/72). So, Art 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, subject to Art 10(2) restrictions as ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for (among other things) ‘the prevention of disorder or crime’ or ‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’.
But what about potentially offensive or shocking speech? Handyside indicates that, subject to Art 10(2), the right to freedom of expression
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
