Actually we do. Under both common law, and statute via the Human Rights Act. What does being a monarchy have to do with it?
Say anything you damn well like unless it has been proscribed by Statute. Examples include inciting racial hatred or as here the provisions of this public order law.
> It's one of the situations that have been proscribed. In this case by the Public Order Act 1986.
You just claimed you have free speech. Now you're citing a specific law making it illegal to not be deferential enough to police. These two points conflict.
I am aware of NO nation on earth that has unconstrained free speech, including the USA. I believe the famous canonical example in a US context is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and therefore speech opposing the draft.
>I am aware of NO nation on earth that has unconstrained free speech, including the USA. I believe the famous canonical example in a US context is shouting fire in a crowded theatre, and therefore speech opposing the draft.
How is telling someone "leave me alone", but not respectfully enough, in any way comparable to causing a panic that leads to a crush?
UK law chose to add a restriction for abusive or threatening language. The edge is in a different place, that's all. I don't think the UK has ever restricted speaking out against conscription, the US used to. Different countries, different restrictions.
It is still free speech within the legislated exclusions set by the two countries. No one gets fined or imprisoned for standing outside parliament complaining about the government all day etc.
In accepting the penalty without disputing it in court, we'll never know if a court would have upheld this case as a reasonable fine or interpretation of the law.
Say anything you damn well like unless it has been proscribed by Statute. Examples include inciting racial hatred or as here the provisions of this public order law.