That’s technically correct but the act does mention “insulting language” and “intent”. These are subjective outside of a court. Here is the text of the act:
1. Racial Hatred (Part III, Sections 18–23)
• Section 18: It is an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior, or to display, publish, or distribute written material, if it is intended to stir up racial hatred or if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
• Section 19-21: Cover publishing, broadcasting, and public performance of material that stirs up racial hatred.
• Section 23: Covers possession of inflammatory material with intent to distribute it.
2. Religious and Sexual Orientation Hatred (Part IIIA, Sections 29B–29F)
• Section 29B: It is an offense to use threatening words or behavior (but not merely abusive or insulting ones) to stir up religious hatred or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.
• Intent is required for conviction (i.e., it must be proven that the person intended to incite hatred).
When this law is left for the CPS and the courts to rule on then that’s fine. When it’s left for private businesses to adjudicate it, it’s outsourcing state censorship.
Comments
The OSA definition of hate is what was already illegal under the 1986 Public Order Act.
That’s technically correct but the act does mention “insulting language” and “intent”. These are subjective outside of a court. Here is the text of the act:
1. Racial Hatred (Part III, Sections 18–23) • Section 18: It is an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior, or to display, publish, or distribute written material, if it is intended to stir up racial hatred or if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. • Section 19-21: Cover publishing, broadcasting, and public performance of material that stirs up racial hatred. • Section 23: Covers possession of inflammatory material with intent to distribute it.
2. Religious and Sexual Orientation Hatred (Part IIIA, Sections 29B–29F) • Section 29B: It is an offense to use threatening words or behavior (but not merely abusive or insulting ones) to stir up religious hatred or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. • Intent is required for conviction (i.e., it must be proven that the person intended to incite hatred).
When this law is left for the CPS and the courts to rule on then that’s fine. When it’s left for private businesses to adjudicate it, it’s outsourcing state censorship.