It is observed that the creation of a balance between freedom of expression and restricting the hate speech is a contentious and evolving challenge in the UK. This debate is concerned with the significance of the protection of individual rights and safeguarding the society from any harm. The question, “what is the legal boundary between free speech and hate speech in the UK?” is a reflection of the public concern about this confusion. This article will discuss in detail these boundaries, making reference to the relevant legal provisions, case laws, and legal principles.
Freedom of expression in the UK
The right to freedom of expression is given under the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that is incorporated in the UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. It is stated in the Article 10:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”
However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, as certain limitations are mentioned in the Article 10(2) regarding the protection of national security, public safety, and restricting the disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, and also the rights of other people.
What constitutes hate speech?
Hate speech is basically the expression which may instigate the violence, hatred, or discrimination against groups or individuals on the basis of characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, according to the UK law. It is a crime, according to different statutes. In Public Order Act 1986, it is an offence to use abusive, threatening, or insulting words or behaviour with the intention to create racial hatred as per Section 18. While according to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, stirring up hatred based on religion will also be considered a crime and under Communications Act 2003, Section 127, when offensive or menacing messages are sent through electronic communication networks, they will also be criminalised.
Legal boundaries between free speech and hate speech
There exist a number of critical challenges to determine the boundary line between freedom of expression and hate speech. The approach of UK is concerned to balance these rights for the purpose of ensuring that the speech of a person does not infringe the safety, dignity, or equality of the other individuals.
Key case law examples
In the case of R v. Keegstra [1990] 3 SCR 697, a decision of the Canadian court has highlighted the conflict between free speech and societal harm, as in this case, Keegstra was convicted by the court because of promoting anti-Semitic content in classrooms. While in another precedent, R v. Sheppard and Whittle [2010] EWCA Crim 65, the convictions were made by the court due to publishing racially hateful material online, according to Article 10, in which hate speech is not protected. Moreover, In DPP v. Collins [2006] UKHL 40, it was confirmed by the court that racially abusive phone calls are outside the protections provided in Article 10 of the Communications Act 2003.
Arguments supporting free speech
Democratic society
The role of freedom of expression is important in the functioning of a democratic society. As it is observed by Lord Steyn in R V Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 47, it is mandatory to allow the free speech for public scrutiny of the policies of government and promote open debate.
Marketplace of ideas
According to the “Marketplace of Ideas theory”, when there is a free competition between the ideas, then it may lead to revealing the truth. By suppressing unpopular or controversial opinions, progress may be restricted.
Chilling effect
It is observed that the overboard laws against hate speech are silent on the legitimate discourse. The criticism of religion may be misconstrued as hate speech as it was debated during the passage of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Arguments supporting hate speech prohibitions
Protection of vulnerable groups
Hate speech laws provide protection to the marginalized groups from harm. According to the studies, unchecked hate speech may lead to increased discrimination and violence.
Prevention of public disorder
Under the Public Order Act 1986, it is necessary to maintain the public order. Due to the hate speech, the violence and disruption can be created in the societal harmony.
Ethical responsibility
It is the moral duty of the society to promote equality and mutual respect. If the hate speech is permitted, then it will undermine these principles and affect the social cohesion of the society.
Criticisms of UK hate speech laws
It is argued by the critics that terms such as grossly offensive are subjective and open to misuse as mentioned in the Communications Act 2003. Furthermore, high-profile cases such as Paul Chambers’ Twitter Joke Trial have raised questions regarding the overreach of hate speech law into artistic and comedic expression.
Conclusion
To conclude the discussion, in order to balance the freedom of expression and the restrictions on hate speech, there is a need to adopt a comprehensive legislation and judicial interpretation. The approach of UK is based on the proportionality and reasonableness with the aim to make sure the individual liberties and protect the interests of society. However, the debate has to be continued specifically with respect to the digital age, and there is a need of continuous legal evolution. By developing understanding about the interconnection between these legal boundaries, policymakers and citizens can deal with the challenges of free speech and hate speech in a balanced way by respecting the rights and maintaining the harmony of the society.
