Laws differ greatly across the world concerning freedom of expression - the best protection against falling foul of these laws is a good defensive awareness. Ignorance is never an acceptable plea in court - make sure you are armed with knowledge. Prevention is better then cure, as they say...

The 'human right' to freedom of expression, in the United Kingdom is limited by the following key factors:

The cruel cold truth is that the Article above gives nothing to a person's rights, yet defines clearly a non-exhaustive yet exhausting list of reasons for which Government can curtail and criminalise a citizen's "Freedom of Expression".

In being aware of the limits to what we can and cannot write, it is necessary to examine the interaction between UK and European Law on the subject - and take guidance from European Court of Human Rights judgments on such laws in the past. This will now be considered in reference to the above Eleven limitations on your freedom to write freely...

1. Obscenity and Profanity

Anything that tends to 'deprave or corrupt' can fall within the purview of the Obscene Publications Acts. See Wikipedia for more in-depth information. The laws on obscenity seem to no longer be enforced, yet that is no guarantee of future punitive and specific action on the part of Government. For example read the following:

 extract from: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/pamphlet/proporn.htm

Therefore European Law has liberalised the UK position on obscenity somewhat, yet it remains within the establishment's repertoire of weapons to crack down on your free expression. For Scottish writers - be aware that the law is slightly different, yet obviously amalgamated with English law, by virtue of European Community harmonization on this limit to the right of self-expression.

2. Defamation and Product Defamation

Defamation is harming anothers reputation by words either spoken or published. It is a civil action giving rise to substantial damages in some instances. Basically therefore: this means the rich can defame whilst the poor cannot, because well, they can afford it!

Furthermore, the person bringing a defamation action, has to actually have a reputation that can sustain damage. Calling Ian Huntley a sick, bastard paedophile therefore (hopefully!) shouldn't give rise to a legal suit for defamation. Calling Prince Charles the same however - just might lead to a little litigation!

The BBC propounds defamation to be any statement exposing the aggrevied party to "hatred, ridicule or contempt", causing "them to be shunned or avoided", Discrediting "them in their trade, business or profession" and generally discrediting "them in the eyes of right thinking members of society".

This is a cautious piece of definition by the BBC, although  useful for anyone whom wishes to really be careful about their liability under law for defamation. However, if such  points leading to defamation action can be proved to be true in a court of Law:  the defence of 'justification' is said to be invoked. Therefore in such an instance it matters not if the  statement leads to "hatred, ridicule or contempt", causing "them to be shunned or avoided", Discrediting "them in their trade, business or profession" and generally discrediting "them in the eyes of right thinking members of society".

3. Subjudicy

Subjudicy is prejudicial reporting upon matters that are subject to current court actions. If committed the publisher and writer in question may well be charged with Contempt of Court. If reporting on anything to do with ongoing court cases: You need to know about subjudicy in full. Otherwise skip forward...

The Freedom of information Act 2000 has very little influence on matters of Subjudicy. If you were for example investigating something prior to a court action by Law Enforcement Agencies, then requesting disclosure from them under the FOIA, is in most cases a complete waste of time (and money) as a cursorary inspection of this PDF from Hampshire Constabulary shows.

British Justice, likes to pride itself on providing a 'right to fair trial' and in all instances even the slightest prejudice expressed in writing, no matter how factual, relating to matters either in or entering court proceedings may make you liable for Contempt of Court for the heinous crime of Subjudicy. This 'monopoly' of the Court system to determine evidence and information is allegedly more of a device to quell the enlightenment of the public and so ensure a nice clean miscarriage of justice should the establishment so desire, according to leading conspiracy theorists, of course.

4. Incitement to Commit Criminal Acts

For everyone of the myriad of criminal offences in UK law, there is also the prohibition of inciting others to commit said offence. Broadly, inciting an offence will make a person culpable for the same fines and/or custodial terms as if they had committed the actual offence itself. For example inciting people to murder carries the same penalty as murder itself. There's a small, though contentious overlap with inciting the terrorism offence because New Labour likes New Laws with added obviousness. Therefore being charged under incitement to murder for doing something like this charming fellow:

Won't result the same severity of sentence it once did. Do you feel safer for knowing that? Good. So to be brief, encouraging any criminal act is wrong, hopefully you know every single criminal act there is. If you don't like all human creatures, then just be careful of your message, especially in Non-fictional and news based writing. There's a reason behind that "Publish and be Damned" quotlet isn't there? If you do happen to go and learn every criminal act possible under UK law right now, come and be our friend, because you're obviously a God or Lucifer sponsored Solicitor savant, and either way - we'd like your help for the future please!

5. Encouragement and Glorification of Terrorism

A very new and controversial offence, prohibiting what was already illegal: the incitement to political violence, and also extending this to include glorification means - lots of lovely grey areas for lawyers to argue over and interpret whilst the rest of us are as usual half in the dark as to what we can and cannot write. Gorgeous.

And don't think just cause you're not into radical jihadism or whatever the PC phrase is nowadays, you're not covered. You are. Animal Rights, Enviromentalism, Protesting etc etc. You're a target, be mobile and be mindful that everything you can say.... will be misconstrued and held against you. Obviously, not being a douchebag who blows up babies over some political fad is a great start to avoiding problems here. Speaking on behalf of a charity which works for enhancement of fundamental human rights however, is even worse, and getting lippy with police officers who are telling you to be a good quiet little drone: doesn't usually end up all peachy. Big Fines. Yes

Don't be a nasty bug. Everything is wonderful. Multiculturalism is great. In no way is English culture being forcibly eroded and destroyed. Move along. Nothing to see here...

7. Speech Infringing Copyright

Before you say or write anything: make sure it's not copyrighted.  it's iWrong and despite being "the real thing" you might end up in court for it. By the way, you can't get kwiker than a kwik fit fitter...

8. Classified National Secrets

9. Blasphemy

Saying nasty things against the Church of England's God, or indeed the notions of this state-sponsored religion are still illegal under UK law. However being that the last successful prosecution was back in 1971 - and that the Crown Prosecution Service has declined since to get involved - hopefully this anachronistic device of group-think will be abolished. However - it is still unfortunately on the statute book, and is worthy of your careful attention, although checking the facts of Whitehouse v. Lemon, blasphemy might do your career more good then harm, or at least make life more exciting. Read the Wikipedia article on the case for clarification of sorts.

Fighting a corrupt political system? On every tax return eh? Go you! Us likewise. People who know and fight against the fact government is intrinsically corrupt curiously have always tended to piss governments off. This problem doesn't exist in proper functioning pluralistic democraciesr, but then, what the smeg is that anyway right?

Basically, don't willfully conspire with others to bring down and take over your government, because, erm, that's the job of political parties. And those guys, really hate competition. It's like Labour ASDA and Conservative TESCO out there man, so let them do their thang. Don't make them get the big boys interested in you. Sedition doesn't lead to a happy retirement. Steer Clear.

Treason eh? To be treasonous, what's the difference with that and sedition? Well, Sedition is  talking the talk, whilst treason is walking the walking. If you get what I mean, and I'm sure you do. Got a Royality beheding fetish? Nice, don't live it out though, you can still get some serious capital punishment for that, despite what the girly Human Rights Act says.

11. Trade and Corporate Secrets

KFC CHICKEN HAS 7 DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIDS IN IT!!! ZOMG!!!

TextualEcstasy  is encouraging group enhancement of this reference article as a perpetual work in progress. Please add comments and suggestions via the following link:

1. Obscenity and Profanity
2. Defamation and Product Defamation
   http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm Defamation Act 1996
   "How to Avoid Libel and Defamation" from the BBC Action Network
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1183394
3. Subjudicy
   http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9BF7A862-2CA7-4F94-A427-1B192918B460/0/HC0005706.pdf
4. Incitement to Commit Criminal Acts
5. Encouragement and Glorification of Terrorism
6. Hate Speech Concerning Gender, Sexual Orientation, Race or Religion
7. Speech Infringing Copyright
8. Classified National Secrets
9. Blasphemy
   http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9505.htm
10. Sedition and Treason
11. Trade and Corporate Secrets

---