Freedom of Speech Online

Colleges have an important role to play in encouraging the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, promoting alternative and sometimes radical viewpoints.

Although they don't have a duty to actively promote free speech, there are common rights which colleges should uphold.

The internet is increasingly bluring the boundaries of freedom of speech...

Philip Burgess, 22 from Salford posted comments on Facebook calling for his 'friends' to carry out riots in Manchester. He also published several racist posts regarding the ethnicity of the rioters.

Although rioting did occur in the centre of Manchester, all of Philip's activity occured online and there is no evidence that he took part in the disorder.

Freedom of Speech Online

PHILIP BURGESS

ROYAL BARNES & REBECCA DAWSON

Philip Burgess was sentenced to three years for offences under the Public Order Act 1986 of publishing material likely to stir up racial hatred and encouraging or assisting the commission of a riot.

Although he didn't take part in the rioting himself, his intention was judged to be significant

OUTCOME:

"In reality we can't say any person who saw the message decided to riot because of it, but it was plainly the defendant's intention and it may well have encouraged some of those who did behave in that way."

"Even if one or two people had read it and talked about it to others, it had the potential of causing real public mischief.'"

Royal Barnes and his wife Rebecca Dawson recorded and uploaded three videos to youtube shortly after the murder of Lee Rigby.

Barnes also posed as a suicide bomber outside Finsbury Park tube station.

Barnes was sentenced to five years and four months for inciting terrorism overseas and three counts of disseminating terrorist publications in February 2014. His wife Rebekah Dawson had previously pleaded guilty to three counts of disseminating terrorist publications.

OUTCOME:

Key Points:

• One of the first cases heard on 'glorifying' terrorism
• Social media statements were used to determine intent
• Prosecuted under Terrorism Acts as these carry heaviest sentences

"Be careful with the YouTube stuff. My husband took this one down. If they got that they would have arrested. Have you watched it - it was really inciting and almost glorifying. LOL."

Is this free speech?

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

JAMIE MURRAY

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

A Christian café owner in Lancashire screened bible verses from the New Testament in his shop. The DVD played through every verse from the book.

A complaint was subsequently lodged by a member of the public

PROTECTIONS

Following the death of Lee Rigby in Woolwich a link to a video was posted on the Facebook page of a London university's Islamic Society. The video claimed the attack had been staged.

Following complaints the society apologised and removed the video

The Islamic Society removed the link from their Facebook page and no subsequent action was taken by Police

“views represented on the YouTube videos referred to in the media do not represent the views of the Union or its Islamic Society”.

“Links to these videos were, however, posted on the Facebook site by an individual user and we apologise for the offence this has caused.”

OUTCOME:

Key Points:

• The society did not create the content
• The link was removed and the society apologised
• It was posted on a group rather than personal profile
• The videos do not glorify or promote terrorism

Police officers attended the café and informed Murray that some of the verses displayed were offensive and homophobic, contravening Section 5 of the Public Order Act, covering the use of offensive or abusive words and behaviour. He was told he could be arrested if he continued to display the content.

Human Rights Act

OUTCOME:

Key Points:

• The Public Order Act is very broad in scope - Police can take action regardless of intent
• Protections generally exist for mainstream religious beliefs

The Equality Act (2010)

BOUNDARIES

• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
• Freedom of expression (Article 10)
• Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11)

• Inclusion of non-religious philosophical beliefs and the absence of belief
• Does not cover support for political parties, or violent and extreme views

There are a number of protections which exist to defend the rights of individuals to freely express their views and beliefs.

Public Order Act (1986)

Hate Crimes

• Threatening or abusive behaviour likely or intended to stir up racial hatred
• Threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred based on religion or sexual orientation

Killion v. Franklin Regional School District

A crime can be treated more seriously if aggravated by hostility based on race, religion, sexual orientation or disability

Colleges have a duty to ensure that they are not restricting the basic human rights of their students to free speech.

However, these protections for free expression exist within a framework of other laws and rights...

Terrorism Legislation

Communications Acts (1998 & 2003)

• Encouraging or glorifying acts of terrorism in the UK or overseas
• Distributing or making available terrorist publications

• Electronically sending material that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing
• Defenses include if the person did not intend it to reach a wide audience, tried to remove it and/or expressed remorse