The Case of Sheikh Ali Salman [Bahrain]
REGISTER NOW: Join us on October 3 & 4 for the “Regulating the Online Public Sphere: From Decentralized Networks to Public Regulation” conference
Closed Mixed Outcome
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
A U.K. Court fined the Defendant, Paul Grange, under the Public Order Act of 1986 after he wore a shirt referring to the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster as God’s way of dealing with a pest problem. As Grange pleaded guilty to the offense, this case does not set any precedent value for other freedom of expression cases. However, the conviction itself raises some freedom of expression concerns as the shirt, although in extremely bad taste, did not directly threaten any person. The sentencing is yet another illustration of the difficulty in drawing the line between free speech and hate speech.
“Global FoE could not identify official legal and government records on the case and case information was derived from secondary sources. Global FoE notes that media outlets may not provide complete material and additional information regarding legal matters will be updated as an official source becomes available.”
Paul Grange ordered a Tshirt from a printing company with a message referring to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster as God’s way of dealing with a pest problem. He was thrown out of the pub he wore it to and a picture taken of the shirt by a passerby went viral on social media. Grange was arrested under the Public Order Act of 1989, which punishes someone who “displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Grange pleaded guilty to the offense and expressed remorse for what he had done, noting that the shirt had merely been banter between himself and his friends and he had not intention of causing harm. Family members of the victims said seeing the images on the shirt had caused them harm.
Grange was fined £6oo for the offense and ordered to pay £135 in court costs and a £60 victim surcharge.
The chair of the magistrates bench, Sue Dowty, told Grange: “This offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine. In coming to the fine we have taken into account your remorse, balanced by the distress caused to people.”
The magistrates also ordered the forfeiture and destruction of the T-shirt and a second shirt bearing similar offensive comments.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
As Grange pleaded guilty to the offense, this case does not set any precedent value for other freedom of expression cases. However, the conviction itself raises some freedom of expression concerns as the shirt, although in extremely bad taste, did not directly threaten any person. The sentencing is yet another illustration of the difficulty in drawing the line between free speech and hate speech.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.