A council has ditched a set of new rules including fines for people swearing in the street amid the threat of a legal challenge that they could violate free speech.

Thanet District Council (TDC) hoped to hit those using foul language in the pocket in perceived trouble “hot spots” such as Birchington, Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs.

But the local authority has now revoked its new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) after the Free Speech Union (FSU) threatened to make it the subject of a judicial review battle in the High Court, after cabinet members met to discuss the issue tonight.

The FSU opposed the council’s new order on the grounds it could prevent a person’s right to protest peacefully due to “too vague and too broad” parameters about how they could express discontent.

It had not set out specific opposition to the use of foul language but branded the order as the “worst one it had seen” after seeing a rise in local authorities trying to “crack down on speech they don’t like”.

The order stated: “All persons are prohibited from using foul or abusive language in such a manner that is loud and can be heard by others and cause either alarm or distress to any other person in any public place.”

Under the PSPO, Thanet residents or visitors observed by council enforcement officers or police using offensive language in public could face £100 fines.

TDC said the new order would “address some of the incidences of anti-social behaviour that have caused issues within the district” and also includes restrictions on drinking alcohol in public places when asked to stop by a council enforcement officer.

But in a letter to the council and representations before the group of councillors this week, the FSU argued the PSPO was non-specific and could plausibly be used to restrict peaceful protests or street preaching.

Activist Steven O’Grady told the council’s overview and scrutiny panel on Tuesday: “The terms of PSPO cannot possibly meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“They are far too vague and far too broad.

“People would not be able to, on seeing a prohibition on being pejorative, be able to determine for themselves what it means to be pejorative.

“That’s an entirely subjective requirement and we say it leaves far too much discretion on the part of enforcement officers.

“We’re very serious in our opposition to this order, we mean business with our letter and we intend to continue with our course of action.”

Other areas the FSU objected to the PSPO included bans on groups of two or more people congregating and being “abusive, alarming, threatening, insulting, intimidating and harassing… or otherwise causing a disturbance to a member of the public”.

It also opposed to the order stating a public space could not be used “otherwise in accordance of its intended use”.

In a statement on Thursday evening, a spokesperson for TDC said: “Although the proposed PSPO included a restriction preventing the use of foul language which caused alarm or distress to other people, there have been provisions regarding the use of foul language in force in Thanet via a PSPO since 2018. This was not an issue raised with the council by the Free Speech Union.

“However, cabinet agreed that the drafting of this order could be improved to ensure that it is fully enforceable.

“The PSPO will now be redrafted, a public consultation will follow which clearly sets out the PSPO’s aims and provides clear evidence for the proposed restrictions in the suggested locations.”

The rule came into force on July 31, only to be deactivated days later after the cabinet decision that passed it was ‘called in’ to be reconsidered by the TDC Overview and Scrutiny Panel earlier this week.

As the decision had not been formally implemented and has now been reversed by TDC’s cabinet, it can no longer be challenged in the courts.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Cllr Rebecca Wing (Green) said she felt as though the council was being “bullied” by the FSU, while Labour’s Joanne Bright told how she approved of the PSPO and found the rights group’s intervention “baffling” and a “waste of time”.

“I voted for this, I was confident with it because in my eyes, this is about limiting and dealing with antisocial behaviour, that we really, really need,” added Cllr Bright.

“It’s not about criminalising free speech at all.

“I also find it slightly intimidating that someone is coming in and is saying, ‘If you don’t approve this, then we’re going to take you to court about it.”

But Cllr Phil Fellows (Con), who chaired the meeting, remarked: “We need a PSPO, but what we don’t want is a judicial review that’s going to cost £100,000 - that’s the position we’re in at the moment.”

Aside from concerns of inaccuracy, Mr O’Grady also took issue with how TDC engaged in public consultation before rolling out the new policy.

He claimed the pubic was not given sufficient information about the proposal in order to form an informed opinion and that PSPOs should be used to target specific behaviour in specific locations – not broad swaths of the district.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr O’Grady added:” My intention was not to bully the councillors in any way - but perhaps the fact that they felt that illustrates the problem with reporting that doesn’t have any safeguard against individual perceptions. That is part of the problem with the PSPO - it’s all in the eye of the beholder.”