Because the Guardian notes this morning:

The director of public prosecutions is interesting to the supreme court docket in an ongoing and costly battle to overturn the acquittal of two protesters discovered to have acted moderately in calling Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum”.

The background to the case is that:

Ruth Wooden, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, have been discovered not responsible in November 2022 of utilizing threatening, abusive or insulting phrases or behaviour with intent after a two-day trial in Manchester magistrates court docket.

That they had been outdoors the Midland resort in Manchester, the place the Conservative celebration annual convention was going down in October 2021 [and….] individually known as him “Tory scum”. Wooden added:“Fuck off out of Manchester.”

As was famous in court docket:

Wooden had efficiently defended her feedback on the grounds that her job working with homeless folks in her local people meant she felt very strongly concerning the impression Conservative celebration insurance policies have been having on folks’s lives. Duncan Smith was the work and pensions secretary from 2010 to 2016.

Haslam’s feedback have been made in a speech through which he cited baby poverty, homelessness and a scarcity of motion over the local weather emergency as causes “why folks hate you, why folks name you scum”. He added: “It would not come out of nowhere. It comes from what you have got carried out to strange folks’s lives … disgrace on you, Tory scum.”

Because the Guardian then notes:

In clearing the 2 protesters, Choose Goldspring, who can be described because the chief Justice of the Peace, had famous that “the usage of Tory scum was to focus on the insurance policies” of Duncan Smith and that this was related to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and meeting.

Goldspring added: “Using these phrases didn’t quantity to an offence, as within the circumstances it was affordable.”

The federal government sought a judicial evaluation of the choice. It was discovered that the choice concerned no fault in legislation.

So they’re now going to the Supreme Court docket to attempt to overturn these choices and make it a criminal offense to name a Tory minister ‘scum’.

They justify this by saying:

We’ve an obligation to make sure that that we perceive the reasoning of a court docket in order that we are able to appropriately apply any issues to future circumstances and charging choices. This enchantment was pursued as a result of what’s required, for all involved, is readability and certainty.

There’s a technical description for that, which is it’s drivel (different phrases could possibly be used).

The fact is that the Tories need to restrict free speech.

The courts wouldn’t do it.

Making a justified declare that the Tories are scum is clearly a authorized factor to do.

Until you’re a Tory minister, after all, whose intention right here is to politicise the Supreme Court docket, regardless of the final result. Which appears to be like just like the actions of Tory enemies of free speech to me.