Britain Rolls Out 'Respect Orders' for Antisocial Behavior, and Free-Speech Advocates Warn the Definition Is Too Vague
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood says the new civil orders give authorities tougher tools. Breaching one can mean arrest, unlimited fines or up to two years in jail. Critics say 'distress' is too broad a test.
The U.K. introduced "respect orders" across England and Wales on Monday, and the reaction has been sharp, Fox News reports.
What they are. The government says the orders let police and councils take stronger enforcement action against adults who persistently behave in an "antisocial" way. A court can impose a civil order that bans an offender from town centers or from drinking in "public hot spots" such as parks. Some offenders may be required to join drug, alcohol or anger-management programs. The orders replace civil injunctions for adults.
The penalties. Breaking an order without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offense. Police can arrest on suspicion of a breach, and penalties include unlimited fines and up to two years in jail. A court must approve an order before it applies.
The definition. Antisocial behavior is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, "harassment, alarm or distress" to any person.
The government's case. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said that "unchecked, antisocial [behavior] blights our communities" and that "for too long, we have lacked the powers we need." She said the orders deliver on a manifesto promise and that offenders "will now face the consequences."
The critics. Alan Mendoza of the Henry Jackson Society told Fox the government has a legitimate duty to tackle genuine nuisance but that "vague or elastic definitions" could be "applied to lawful speech or protest." He called for clear limits, evidence rules, judicial oversight and a right of appeal, and said "online criticism, however unwelcome," should not count simply because it embarrasses those in authority. Free-speech lawyer Preston Byrne said a true statement or an honest opinion can cause "harassment, alarm, or distress" under the law. Commentator Calvin Robinson wrote that "this tyranny must end." The Federalist's Sean Davis warned the U.S. would "follow right behind" if Democrats gained full power. Fox noted the U.K. Cabinet Office referred questions to the Home Office, which could not immediately be reached.
Note for readers: no one has yet been reported as punished for speech under the new orders. The critics describe risks, and Fox cites social media posts for some of the reaction.