Let's do away with this insult to free speech Threats and abuse are always wrong and outlawing them is clearly justified. The term "insulting," however, is subjective and vague. Increasingly the police and other law-enforcement agencies are misinterpreting the legislation to such an extent that it is impinging on the right to free speech. In 2009 the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) observed: "Whilst arresting a protester for using 'threatening or abusive" speech may, depending on the circumstances, be a proportionate response, we do not think that language or behaviour which is merely 'insulting" should ever be criminalised in this way." The late Lord Monson, a champion of personal liberties, agreed. Speaking in the House of Lords in the same year, he observed that "the word 'abusive" can be judged objectively, but 'insulting" is totally subjective. What one person finds offensive, the next person may be indifferent to... It did not matter very much at first, because I think that the public 20-odd years ago were less thin-skinned than they are now... People are positively encouraged to be touchy, both by the media - whether deliberately or not - and pressure groups. The comedian and a fellow campaigner for reform, Rowan Atkinson, recently summed up the difficulties posed by the inclusion of the term "insulting" in the Act. He warned that, under Section 5, criticism, unfavourable comparison or "merely stating an alternative point of view" can be interpreted as an insult and lead to arrest. The law, in its current form, has been used to arrest gay activists, Christian preachers and a student who called a police horse "gay." A critic of Scientology was summoned under Section 5. And a young man who said "woof" to a dog was actually convicted, although a court later cleared him. There must be something wrong with a law that can be used by police, prosecutors and the courts in such an excessively broad way. Opponents of reform argue, incorrectly, that by removing the term "insulting" from the Act, individuals will be at liberty to verbally abuse vulnerable people. This ignores the existence of other pieces of legislation, better suited to tackling these offences. Laws such as public nuisance, breach of the peace, harassment and incitement to hatred ensure there are more than sufficient powers to bring perpetrators of such crimes to justice. Furthermore, as case law demonstrates, Section 5 in its amended form would still be sufficient to prosecute individuals who are being abusive. This includes foul-mouthed rants targeted at individuals - including the police - which are capable of being deemed as either abusive or threatening. In a last-minute development, the Crown Prosecution Service now supports this view. In a letter to me, dated December 6, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, explained that: "Having now considered the case law in greater depth, we are unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not be characterised as 'abusive" as well as 'insulting." I therefore agree that the word 'insulting" could be safely removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions." Behaviour that is merely "insulting" should not be criminal in a democracy. The vote tomorrow is an important opportunity to enhance free speech. I hope the House of Lords will approve my amendment. Lord Dear is a Crossbench member of the House of Lords. Previously he was chief constable of West Midlands, and HM Inspector of Constabulary