Protecting freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right which must be lawfully upheld. The difficulty arises when differentiating between this and causing a public nuisance...
             After demonstrating at Dump-It's site and headquarters, Janet is being prosecuted for harassment, threatened with a civil injunction preventing her from using the footpath for the purpose of spying on, annoying and disturbing and being banned from trespassing on or obstructing any of the firm's premises. Dump-It are also seeking damages.
             Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, conduct which amounts to harassment is defined in section 1(1), as that:
             '(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
             (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.'
             A person is guilty of the offence of harassment if their conduct is in breach of section 1, and, under this section 'is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale, or both.'
             Harassment is a criminal offence, and as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 s.37 (2), level five on the standard scale refers to a fine not exceeding £5,000, although this may be substituted by order under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 .
             There are several claims of defence for Janet against this charge however.
             Under section 1, it states that one 'knows or ought to know' their conduct amounts to harassment. Janet could argue that she was unaware a peaceful protest could be classed as unreasonable behaviour.
             Section 1 (3) (c) of the same act states that 'Section 1(1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows ....the course of conduct was reasonable.'
             Janet could claim that the protest was reasonable conduct, as no violence was used or threatened, and instead, she was just making the ...