Certain controversial and seemingly ill defined and subjective provisions like s4a or S5 public order offences, or anti social Behaviour legislation rely on terms like harassment alarm and distress. These terms seem to inherently lend themselves to being innocently or willfully misunderstood by police in the field and gives them wide latitude to police people's behaviour and expressions in public.
Surely these fuzzily defined terms must have come under scrutiny and challenge in the courts somewhere and courts must have clarified them to limit their scope of restriction upon people's freedom.
What exists in the way of narrowing down the definitions of these controversial terms? Must the distress be severe over a certain threshold criteria to qualify? Must alarm encompass a realistic fear of actual injury? Must harassment specifically be a series of multiple acts over a certain period of time?
And what of the question of reasonableness? My grandma might be shocked and morally disgusted at me not wearing a shirt, but most people of my generation wouldn't be. Whose sensibilities then are reasonable?
In summary it seems that anything could be deemed by someone to be antisocial behaviour or to be "reasonably causing" "harassment alarm or distress" to another person/group/household. What limits are there to curtail this potentially boundless and abuse-prone breadth of reach?