The Volokh Conspiracy - "No Charges Over [Anti-]Scientology Demo[nstration]":

The BBC reports:

Legal action has been dropped against a 15-year-old who faced prosecution for branding Scientology a "cult".

The teenager held up a sign which read, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult", in May outside its headquarters in the City of London.

City of London Police said it had received complaints and warned the teenager to get rid of the sign as it breached the Public Order Act.

More on the incident in this post. Here's my question:

A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) spokesman said: "In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting.

"Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression."

Can anyone who is familiar with English law tell me what "abusive," "insulting," and "offensive," which are apparently terms of art, mean? ("Abusive" and "insulting" appears to be the statutory test; "offensive" seems to be the Crown Prosecution Service's interpretation of the terms.)

I would think that calling a religion a "cult" would be offensive and insulting in the lay sense of the word -- it may be quite right, and it should certainly be constitutionally protected, but despite its being offensive and insulting, not somehow "there is no offensiveness" there. So what's the legal rule in England about what's allowed and what's not?

Related Posts (on one page):

"No Charges Over [Anti-]Scientology Demo[nstration]":
Possible Prosecution in England for Calling Scientology "Cult" on Sign:

(link)

Brian Mac:

I think this is the relevant law. Can't help you as to whether they're terms of art, but they do seem awfully vague and far-reaching, and are used a bunch of times in other sections of the same Act.

5.23.2008 12:52pm

LurkingAnon:

Raid tiem, plox?

5.23.2008 1:00pm

Brett Bellmore:

I would think that calling a religion a "cult" would be offensive and insulting

Yes, but calling a criminal conspiracy disguised as a religion a "cult" is praising with faint damns, so I don't see where they've got a real basis for complaint.

5.23.2008 1:08pm

Tareeq (www):

The Full Public Order Act of 1986 (as amended) is here with annotations.

It seems relevant also that the words must cause "harassment, alarm, or distress". The statute is unclear as to whether one uses a subjective standard (thin skull) or objective standard (reasonable man) to determine whether words create "harassment, alarm, or distress".

5.23.2008 1:12pm

EIDE_Interface (mail):

This is why we established the United States. You know that pesky ole "Freedom of speech" thang.

5.23.2008 1:26pm

Nathan_M (mail):

I'm not familiar with English law, but I'm not convinced "insulting" is a term of art. For example, see Hammond v. D.P.P.. That case doesn't deal with "abusive", but it said that insulting "is an ordinary, uncomplicated English word which does not require construction in the sense of substituting other forms of expression for its meaning in order to apply it"

The context in that case was an appeal, which was dismissed, against a conviction for a sign saying "'Stop Immorality', 'Stop Homosexuality' and 'Stop Lesbianism'". I'm not sure how to square that with this case.

The accused in Hammond did admit to a police officer he thought the sign was insulting, which no doubt made things more difficult for his counsel.

5.23.2008 1:55pm

Just Saying:

I have no idea why people are so down on scientology. Its mythos are no more or less plausible than, say, Abrahamic religion and its business practices are no more or less shady than mainstream religion; my mother's Christian church asked all parishoners to submit photocopies of their 1040s, so the church could be sure they were tithing ten percent.

5.23.2008 2:35pm

robmc (mail):

The Public Order Act allows the constable to "arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence ...." Accordingly, the meaning of the terms like "offensive" and "insulting" is directly related to the constable's subjective judgment. And this may be the very point of the English law. Subsequent prosecution (that might ultimately lead to definition of those terms) is unnecessary where, as in the case of the 15 year old protester, the speech is silenced and the crowd is dispersed.

5.23.2008 2:40pm

Papapete (mail):

Since the words on the sign are an exact quote of a High Court judge's legal opinion I find it hard to comprehend that it might be actionable.

5.23.2008 3:05pm

Fub:

robmc wrote at 5.23.2008 1:40pm:

The Public Order Act allows the constable to "arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence ...." Accordingly, the meaning of the terms like "offensive" and "insulting" is directly related to the constable's subjective judgment.

In that case it is not unreasonable to inquire just what might have influenced the constable's subjective judgment. This BBC news story from late 2006 might, or might not, shed some light on the decision to arrest.

The lede:

The City of London Police is carrying out an inquiry amid claims officers accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

Source of the BBC link is this Slashdot thread.

5.23.2008 3:07pm

Thoughtful (mail):

I think something becomes actionably insulting when not enough people complain that an arrest was made.

5.23.2008 3:15pm

and its business practices are no more or less shady than mainstream religion;

This belief indicates a substantial ignorance of the actual business practices of Scientology, which in fact ARE a lot more shady than mainstream religion. For instance:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/nytimes.html

5.23.2008 3:24pm

one of many:

From the admittedly small sample of cases I've been able to find involving the offense it would indeed seem that Thoughtful has the gist of it. It becomes actionable insult when a judge feels conviction is worth the outcry over it.

5.23.2008 3:25pm

TerrencePhilip:

It is remarkable that, as many Britons have the impression the US tort system is out of control, the one resolutely pro-plaintiff tort they seem to have is libel, and for such a strong democracy they have such weak speech protections.

I wonder what, if any, remedies the protestor has against the police here.

5.23.2008 5:34pm

Bender (mail):

I wonder if the change of heart may have something to do with London's new mayor: After the recent elections, a Conservative is replacing a rabidly left-wing (by USA standards) Labor mayor.

5.23.2008 5:41pm

From the Crown Prosecution Service's website:

"What we mean by racist or religious crime
Racist or religious incidents

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report was published in February 1999, and defined a racist incident as:

'... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.'

We accept this definition."

Accordingly, an offensive statement must be one that is perceived to be offensive by the victim?

5.23.2008 7:26pm

Waldensian (mail):

This belief indicates a substantial ignorance of the actual business practices of Scientology, which in fact ARE a lot more shady than mainstream religion.

Possibly. On the other hand, Scientology has not yet, to my knowledge, engaged in a widespread cover-up of child sex abuse by its practitioners.

Comparing the awfulness and absurdity of one religion to another is always such fun.

5.23.2008 8:36pm

Frater Plotter:

Possibly. On the other hand, Scientology has not yet, to my knowledge, engaged in a widespread cover-up of child sex abuse by its practitioners.

Perhaps not, but it has institutionalized child neglect (Cadet Org) and once infiltrated government agencies for the purpose of covering up its crimes (Operation Snow White).

5.23.2008 9:23pm

Doc Rampage (mail) (www):

"its business practices are no more or less shady than mainstream religion; my mother's Christian church asked all parishoners to submit photocopies of their 1040s, so the church could be sure they were tithing ten percent."

This sort of unsupportable generalization from tiny sample spaces is the core intellectual failing behind prejudice and bigotry. Even if this is true, and frankly, I think a lot is left out of the account, it is one church out of tens of thousands. Condemning all churches on the basis of the actions of one is hardly a reasonable stand.

And even if this were true, and all Christian churches did it, Scientology would still be a lot worse.

5.23.2008 11:41pm

my mother's Christian church asked all parishoners to submit photocopies of their 1040s, so the church could be sure they were tithing ten percent.

Doesn't anyone bother to spin anymore? If I were in charge of getting 1040s from parishoners (sic) to ensure they were tithing 10% I certainly wouldn't tell them that, instead it would be for a demographic study of needs to better service the church community. Spin, it's not just for draedles.

5.24.2008 12:38am

Bob The Lawyer:

Section 5 of the Public Order Act, in common with much of that Act, is over-broad on its face, with no express exclusion for political speech. I would think that the actus reus of "displaying a sign which is... insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress". There is no requirement for intent etc (section 4A, which carries higher penalties, requires intent).

However, the statutory defence of acting reasonably, and/or the interaction with the Human Rights Act (and its guarantee of free expression in most circumstances) means that any attempt to use these sections to prosecute non-inciting political speech should always be doomed.

It is understandable that a layman (such as the police officer in this case) would not appreciate this from a cursory review of the legislation. One would hope that those in charge of policing demonstrations would be better informed than this, but that appears not to have been the case.

With the prosecution dropped, I'm not sure any legal avenue is open to the kid or his advisers. But a referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission would seem sensible (I believe this can only be instigated by him or his immediate family)

Bob

5.25.2008 6:00am

Geoffrey King (mail) (www):

Good thing the kid was wasn't trying to petition his government for a redress of grievances:

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act §§ 132-38

SOCPA criminalizes all unauthorized demonstrations within 1km of Parliament (a term that is not defined) regardless of the content of one's message—although the law has not been applied in anything close to a viewpoint-neutral manner.

5.26.2008 4:09pm

Whoops..."demonstration" is not defined...which has led to some rather silly situations.

5.26.2008 4:10pm