“Freedom of expression is one of the most important of all liberties and human rights. It should be only restricted in extreme and very limited circumstances. The open exchange of ideas – including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas – is a hallmark of a free and democratic society. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is a menace to free speech and the right to protest. It has been repeatedly abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors, to variously arrest gay rights campaigners, Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology and even students making jokes. I’ve been a victim of its misuse when protesting peacefully against Islamist extremists. For all these reasons, I am giving my support to Reform Section 5.’

“Section 5, amongst other things, makes it illegal to insult somebody. This is a law put in place in 1986 and it makes other things illegal which should be, incitement of violence is illegal, abusive behaviour is illegal, but an insult? Who should decide who’s insulted? I’m a politician. I get insulted all the time. It’s part of the cut-and-thrust of politics and actually its an important part of democracy that you’re allowed to say, within reason, what you like. What this does is actually make the courts and the police sit in judgement on whether somebody feels insulted or not which actually has a terrible chilling effect on democracy.’

“No matter what your view, free speech moderately expressed is paramount. A significant part of human freedom lies in the ability to express our opinions freely. There is a clear public interest in protecting the public from threatening or abusive behaviour, but criminalising mere insult goes too far. That is why I am supportive of the campaign to Reform Section 5.’

“For centuries, men and women in Britain have fought for the right to express in words what is in their hearts. Freedom of speech is, perhaps, our most precious civil liberty after the right to life itself. It is not legitimate to criminalise words or behaviour that are merely insulting in the ordinary meaning of the word. One man’s insult is another man’s argument. What one person finds insulting may be sacred truth to the next person. If people are allowed to dial 999 every time they feel insulted, the result is a colossal waste of police time and a dangerous chilling effect on freedom of speech. That is why I support the campaign to Reform Section 5.’

“In a robust democracy people must be free to insult and be insulted. We have laws that protect against incitement to violence and hatred, that should be enough. To protect my feelings from those who wish to laugh at me or hold me in contempt is a freedom I never wanted, nor hoped for. So three cheers for this campaign, three cheers for those like Peter Tatchell, The Christian Institute, David Davis, The National Secular Society, the Freedom Association, Big Brother Watch and all the others standing up for the liberty of people to throw verbal brickbats around.’

“I am delighted to see that the reform of Section 5 has finally gained the attention it deserves. For years this has been one of those niche liberal issues about which very little has been done. But this insidious piece of legislation goes right to the heart of what it means to live in a modern, liberal society. Criminalising behaviour for merely being ‘insulting’ means that the majority can silence the use of any words or opinions with which they do not agree. That is so patently an affront to our freedoms that it should be changed as quickly as possible.’

“Section 5 criminalises everyday encounters and disputes, and gives police officers an astonishingly broad degree of discretion to define the ‘crime’ of insult. There are few groups in society that have not, at some point, fallen victim to Section 5. Campaigners of all stripes should stand up against it.”

‘Should the law really criminalise insulting words? Surely insult is in the eye of the beholder, so how can the police be expected to regulate that? ‘Abusive’ behaviour is clear cut: we all know it when we see it, and it is right that the law addresses it. ‘Threatening’ behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and we need laws to tackle it. But ‘insulting’? The Government should bolster freedom of expression by removing ‘insulting’ from Section 5. ‘

‘Some of the more controversial convictions under Section 5 have rightfully received widespread publicity, and there is a growing awareness that you can be prosecuted for simply speaking your mind.  Many people are worried about this as they instinctively feel that in a democracy you should be free to say what you think.  I know that the public generally has far more sense than the authorities give them credit for. Insulting people is not very nice – but the only court that should be involved is the court of public opinion!’

‘Free speech is precious. When you read cases in the news of people being arrested for nothing more than having a controversial opinion, so often it is Section 5 that is to blame. We need to trim it’s claws. Deleting “insulting words” from its scope is a moderate, sensible step that everyone can support.’

‘With freedoms we can never afford to stand still; we are always swimming against the current. That’s why I am so glad about this new campaign. Reforming Section 5 is a small but important step in rolling back the state’s intrusion into our liberties, and restoring some of our most cherished rights.’

‘I support the Reform Section 5 campaign because freedom of speech is one of the most precious – and fundamental – elements of a free society. Lose that and you risk losing a whole lot more.’

‘Ever since I was elected to Parliament, I have spoken in the House of Commons against measures which undermine freedom of speech and perpetuate State sanctioned political correctness. Section 5 of the Public Order Act is just such a measure and that is why I am very pleased to support this campaign.’