Homework answers / question archive / It has been suggested that the case law demonstrates ‘that the ultimate purpose of s 5 of the 1986 Act [the Public Order Act] is to act as a fulcrum at which the rights of free expression intersect with the right of a broader section of the community not to be harassed, alarmed or distressed’

It has been suggested that the case law demonstrates ‘that the ultimate purpose of s 5 of the 1986 Act [the Public Order Act] is to act as a fulcrum at which the rights of free expression intersect with the right of a broader section of the community not to be harassed, alarmed or distressed’

Writing

Share With

It has been suggested that the case law demonstrates ‘that the ultimate purpose of s 5 of the 1986 Act [the Public Order Act] is to act as a fulcrum at which the rights of free expression intersect with the right of a broader section of the community not to be harassed, alarmed or distressed’. What do the cases tell us about the courts’ approach to balancing these competing interests?