From the start, it was clear that the Scottish Government's legislation to tackle sectarianism was well intentioned but deeply flawed and the first two years of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 have only emphasised those flaws and deepened discontent and doubt.
Football fans do not like it; many lawyers, including sheriffs, have no respect for it; police officers are confused by it; and some religious groups have doubted its effectiveness from the start. The only support, it seems, comes from the Scottish Government itself.
Now another voice has joined the chants of discontent. In a new pamphlet on freedom of expression from The Saltire Society, two Scottish writers, the novelist Alan Bissett and the journalist Jean Rafferty, have discussed the 2012 Act and what they see as its invidious impact on free speech.
Both writers accept Scotland has a problem with sectarianism, but Mr Bissett believes the act is damaging. "It is not the place of government," he says, "to circumscribe which political slogans can and can't be sung by adults. We have the right to criticise, say, the Catholic Church or the actions of the IRA, in whichever terms we like."
This is an objection to the act in principle but it goes too far - most Scots think we should tackle sectarianism, and every democratic society imposes some limits on free speech. The problem with the act lies not in the principle but the practice and distinguishing between what is sectarianism and what is not. It is police officers, publicans on match days, and the courts who have been left to work it out and there is still confusion. Just a few weeks ago, a Celtic fan who was tried twice for singing a pro-IRA song was acquitted when the appeal court ruled it was not likely to incite public disorder (which it must do to constitute an offence under the act).
It is this confusion which has undermined confidence in the act. As Mr Bissett points out, who decides what is offensive, to whom, and why? The act does not answer these questions and has left the police on the ground trying to find the answers - at a considerable cost to their relationship with the fans.
No-one questions that there was a problem for the act to tackle - the legislation was passed in response to some shocking examples of sectarianism. But in seeking to tackle the issue so quickly, the Government charged into the tricky area between free speech and offensive behaviour without properly defining either.
In the two years since it was passed, the evidence against the act has accumulated, including the low number of convictions: under 100 despite the existence of a police unit focused on pursuing them. Not only that - as the Saltire Society's pamphlet points out - most of those convictions were covered under existing legislation anyway.
All of these doubts mean a review of the act is now urgently needed. Scotland has a problem with sectarianism. The last two years have proved the 2012 Act is not the answer.
We moderate all comments on HeraldScotland on either a pre-moderated or post-moderated basis. If you're a relatively new user then your comments will be reviewed before publication and if we know you well and trust you then your comments will be subject to moderation only if other users or the moderators believe you've broken the rules, which are available here.
Moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours. Please be patient if your posts are not approved instantly.