Referendum Posters

latefarmer

Have seen a lot of opinion about posters being out uo about the upcoming referendum. There seems to be an issue with one side in particular in that their posters are being said to be offensive and telling blatant lies.

Just wondering what do people think as in there is a thing going around about making a complaint to gardai under section 7 of the public order act 1994 that this empowers gardai to remove posters. My understanding is thatit does not empower gardai to remove posters unless seen to be wholly offensive but it allows for prosecutions and directions to leave the area with said literature etc. As in it would more so apply to a on the street campaigner rather than a poster?

Also people seem.to be of the belief that posters telling untruths can be taken down by gardai. My belief was that whilst lies are an annoyance there is nothing illegal about it to warrant garda atteniton? Is this all a case of people spreading quasi legal advice on social media? Any thoughts folks?

robman60

If you're talking about the 1 in 5 posters, those are largely true. The contention people make is that the actual rate is 17.9/1000 population of childbearing age in the UK, but that is not the same as 17.9 per 1000 pregnancies. The stats I've seen are approximately 185k abortions for those resident in England and Wales per year with approximately 695k births, 185/695+185 = 21% seems approximately right. It does not account for miscarriage, of course, but I'm not sure that it should.

If you're talking about the ICBR graphic posters I still don't think there is a breach of the legislation

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

It is hard to see how there is any intent to provoke a breach of the peace. I personally find the images make me feel a bit queasy, and perhaps they reflect a reality, but I think they should be available for people to see if they wish, rather than being placed in public places. I still do not think the act is breached, though.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think they do. They do benefit from a temporary relaxation under the Litter Act, but that's hardly a "free pass", and it's certainly not "most legislation". Did you have something else in mind?