Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways

by gorwell • 1 year ago

149 159 1 year ago

economist.com

mitchbob• 1 year ago

https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.c...

account-512• 1 year ago

Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.

handedness• 1 year ago

The article addresses that.

account-512• 1 year ago

Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.

sherr• 1 year ago

Yes, bad laws that are open to interpretation, perhaps as designed. But the police have a lot of discretion and it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet or supposed offense than it is to go after real crimes. We always hear "lessons will be learned" after the fact, again and again, but they don't seem to be.

account-512• 1 year ago

The two laws that the article mentions are pretty well explained in it, fairly clear cut in was can be a criminal act under them. Now whether they are fit for purpose in modern contexts or whether they are too broad is another matter, and not one the police can do anything about. Their job is to enforce what's on the book.

chairmansteve9• 1 year ago

"it's much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet".

That is a very good point. The evidence is right there literally in black and white.

And they can easily get there conviction rates up, which probably matters.

dzhiurgis• 1 year ago

much easier to go after someone for an obnoxious tweet

How far do they go? Will they subpeona twitter if you have pseudonym and track down your ip address? How about tor and vpn, will they actually go thru four letter agencies to track you down?

argomo• 1 year ago

First: "Muddled laws give them wide discretion"

Second: You are responsible for your actions, even if you're just following orders.

account-512• 1 year ago

Muddled laws are a government issue. And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police.

Spooky23• 1 year ago

Totally. When you give police anywhere discretion, they run with it.

gotoeleven• 1 year ago

Enforcing laws consistently would be great but of course one great tactic of tyrannical governments is to have a lot of laws, but only enforce them against disfavored groups.

One San Francisco flavor of this to get charged for bribing officials to do their jobs.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-construction-plan...

landl0rd10• 1 year ago

Police have broad discretion over what they enforce and when. In America Castle Rock v. Gonzales affirmed this strongly (although it also had other questionable implications). I believe things are similar in Britain.

Over here we've seen this with various jurisdictions decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs by simply not policing it.

account-512• 1 year ago

It's different in Britain. If something is reported it has to be looked into. The article covers this. More reporting more investigations.

userbinator• 1 year ago

If only Orwell was still alive to see this.

genocidicbunny• 1 year ago

The good news is we could probably stick some leads on either side of his grave and generate a decent amount of energy from how fast he's spinning in it.

Nopoint2• 1 year ago

He was the guy who started it all. He came up with this concept of "Judeo-Christian values", as the opposition to traditional values that he deemed fascist.

OgsyedIE• 1 year ago

It's strange that all four examples in the article are people with commonly objectionable right-wing views when the UK has sent arresting officers to people on the basis of online comments across the political spectrum in the last couple years. It isn't merely a partisan issue where a group that are easily written off as racists receive heavy-handed justice, the police have intermittently targeted every view away from the center in their homes, even Quakers, disability advocates and anti-hunting activists.

Does the editorial team of the Economist want to imply that only right-leaning members of the British public are experiencing this?

landl0rd10• 1 year ago

Examples like the raid on the quaker meeting are real and contemptible. I'm guessing it's because it's been weaponized against right-wingers for longer not because it's only been used against them. I hope people on the left, palestinian activists, etc. will help push back against these ridiculous tyrannical laws.

adamors• 1 year ago

It’s a wierdly written article, for one I wouldn’t take at face value anything coming from the current US admin, secondly, it keeps using British and European interchangebly, when the only examples are from the UK. It definitely tries to push a narrative.

pcrh11• 1 year ago

Perhaps it's because the most powerful voices criticizing restrictions on speech in the UK are coming from the "right", e.g. Musk, Farage, Robinson, etc.

These claim that their views would be more widely accepted if it were not for restrictions on freedom of speech.

YetAnotherNick• 1 year ago

The article mentions:

That has allowed the police to take a draconian approach to pro-Gaza protests

Generally pro-Gaza is more associated with left wing.

isaacremuant2• 1 year ago

No. But way to try and sidetrack it.

They also used it against people opposing draconian covid policies or protesting for Assange and neither of those are partisan views, no matter how much some might want to pretend they are.

rawling• 1 year ago

even Quakers

Arrests made _at a Quaker meeting house_, not _of Quakers_ (or at least not for _being_ Quakers).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro

The Metropolitan Police said six people had been arrested on Thursday evening at the Westminster Meeting House on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
The force said the arrests had come amid concerns about plans to "shut down" London next month using tactics such as road blocks.

I would imagine your example of "anti-hunting activists" would likely also be people planning to do something to break the law - not purely for online comments.

hathym• 1 year ago

I used to think I lived in a democracy, but the last couple of years pulled back the curtain revealing the true nature of western democracy

croes2• 1 year ago

Fun fact, democracy doesn’t mean free society.

People can vote for less freedom

jibe• 1 year ago

When you vote away foundational freedoms, you are no longer a democracy, at least not a liberal democracy.

idle_zealot• 1 year ago

Not really? If freedom is restricted to the point that people can't meaningfully influence their governance then you no longer have a democracy, even of you continue to hold ceremonial or sham elections. A democracy that allows voting to stop being a democracy is fundamentally unstable and will eventually cease being democratic.

skippyboxedhero7• 1 year ago

No-one voted for this. The police in the UK are using a combination of existing powers (for example, intimidating people by using their powers to question people), non-statutory instruments that politicians have told them repeatedly to stop using, and laws that are being applied to the online world in an expansive way (the current PM is the former head of government prosecutions so is basically the worst person possible to prevent this, the person who passed one of the most infamous laws, Tony Blair, has said it is problematic).

Just generally, this model doesn't apply to the UK. There is an extremely long history of people voting one way and the government doing something else. This is because the country is led by people whose views are shared by no-one, and the tremendous power of the Civil Service (elected officials have limited powers to direct civil servants and cannot remove all but a handful of civil servants...there was an example recently of a senior civil servant giving incorrect information to a minister, the minister was forced to resign, that senior civil servant stayed in for several years, another minister attempted to remove them, the civil servant sued and won a substantial settlement then chose to retire early on a full pension...he was responsible for several massive issues in his department too, Windrush was one, there were many others).

A more nefarious factor is that turnout has collapsed because voters, correctly, understand that their vote doesn't actually matter. The government is unable to do things so why bother voting. Turnout is significantly higher in Russia presidential elections.

To give you an example, the current level of immigration is supported by ~3% of the population. No-one supports this. The government knows no-one supports this. Immigration has stayed high for multiple years, we have had elections, it doesn't matter. If we elected someone to fix it, they would be unable to fix it. Labour have tried to fix it...they spent years in opposition saying the Tories couldn't fix it with their policies...they get into government, within a year they are now trying the exact same policies...because Parliament has no real control, whether in theory or in reality, to change anything, the government gets in, the civil service present the same choices that won't work...you have to be actually mad to think voting makes a difference. The idea that you can fix things by voting is the reason why things are stagnating.

bluecalm2• 1 year ago

"People" can - sure. What we have instead is a situation where people are not voting on those issues. On many issues there is no choice at all not matter what the majority thinks

chairmansteve9• 1 year ago

Yes, there are definitely problems, but at least you can criticise the speech laws. And fight to change them. In fact if you feel strongly about it you can do something about it. The article mentions the Free Speech Union in the UK. There is also the EFF in the USA. Democracy requires that we fight for it. Otherwise it will disappear.

In dicatorships there is no opportunity to speak out.

option• 1 year ago

you can criticize speech laws for now. And tbh, not sure to which extent it is true.

There is no switch front democracy to dictatorship, there is a transition.

cassianoleal3• 1 year ago

In dicatorships there is no opportunity to speak out.

There is always opportunity to speak out.

In dictatorships, it usually costs more energy, money and sometimes lives. It tends to culminate in revolutions, and then the system changes.

In censored quasi-democracies like what we see in "the west", it tends to culminate in being ignored and the status quo being maintained or gradually worsened. Alternatively, you may become a pariah and either have to self-exile [0] or suffer years of isolation and torture [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Asylum_applicat...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_in...

bluecalm2• 1 year ago

Imo the biggest problem in Western democracies is that in a lot of ideological cases we don't have democracy at all. It doesn't matter what majority thinks as no major party is going to implement it.

I get why democracy has to be indirect when it comes to many complicated, interconnected issues but things like free speech laws, abortion laws, public decency laws, smoking bans etc. should all be decided in a direct vote (repeated every N years). As it is we often have a situation where significant majority have a different view but a small strong group is able to influence the law. It's not a democracy but a farce in my view.

ayrtondesozzla• 1 year ago

You can criticise things, but if you are effective, or if you criticise the wrong thing, you risk jail, harassment, ostracisation, threats, campaigns of vilification and slander, etc. Your doctor visits and lawyer visits will be surveilled, your basic diplomatic rights violated. You can be tortured in public view.

Wikileaks' Julian Assange is perhaps the archetypal recent example, but there are others.

Westminster has undergone a violent authoritarian shift in recent decades. Stating that clearly is a prerequisite to beginning a fight for "democracy", as you put it.

perching_aix• 1 year ago

I'm not so sure if putting down a vote for one candidate over many others every few years suffices as democracy though to begin with. [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk

tehjoker• 1 year ago

When the candidate choices are almost completely plugged in for you, there is no meaningful choice either.

sofixa• 1 year ago

but the last couple of years pulled back the curtain revealing the true nature of western democracy

There isn't a singular "western" democracy. Different countries have varying levels of (dis)functional democracies and freedoms, and choose different tradeoffs. E.g there are more hate speech restrictions in countries like Germany and France that literally saw what happens when evil is left unchallenged and many innocent paid with their lives; Germany has a federal state against too much power centralisation, France does the opposite due to absurd failures of governance in the past.

None of the various failures or wins of democracy in "the West" are inducement of "western democracy".

suraci• 1 year ago

opinions like this always lead to two types of comments:

- the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship (we are not the worst, others could be worse)

- the system is good and perfect, it's just a few bad actors ruining it (we can fix it as long as we fix these certain bad actors)

chairmansteve9• 1 year ago

Britain has a problem.

But so does America. Quite a few people (non citizens so far), have been arrested for criticising the actions of the current Israeli government.

Terr_• 1 year ago

Often the problems with free-speech in another country are used as a distraction from whatever is happening at home. In all directions.

landl0rd10• 1 year ago

Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large step in the wrong direction but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws of Britain and many european countries.

chairmansteve9• 1 year ago

The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

KaiserPro8• 1 year ago

but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws

those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough.

The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.

postepowanieadm• 1 year ago

I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.

chairmansteve9• 1 year ago

True.

techright752• 1 year ago

No criminal actions whatsoever. A nation has a right to strike back when it is attacked by a foreign nation using any means it deems necessary for that type of attack to never happen again.

onetimeusename4• 1 year ago

The difference between the two free speech problems can be exemplified with the statements "Palestine is for the Palestinians" and "Britain is for the British". I suspect the political solution behind the two free speech problems is very different though.

techright752• 1 year ago

Nope. The only problem America has is that it let so many people in illegally for so many years. The fact is that almost none (probably none but Im sure there is some weird exception you'll try to spin) of the people criticizing Israel are being arrested - only the ones who break laws while tangentially criticizing American allies. The fact is, you can go to X and see millions of anti-Trump and anti-Israel posts. Im sure it's far worse on Bluecry. The only ones getting arrested are those who violently threaten, break into buildings, hold up traffic etc. I know that the resisters think are some kind of bad ass outlaws, but in reality they are a bunch of nobodies whom no one cares about and no law enforcement is visiting - because it is still very legal to criticize the president and his policies no matter what nonsense you make up.

zugi2• 1 year ago

The public might well question why so much time is spent on this, while burglaries routinely go unsolved.

I'd offer yet another explanation: laziness.

For burglaries, you have to get out of your chair, go out into the community, interview witnesses, search for evidence, and maybe wander into dangerous areas to find and arrest potentially violent suspects.

For internet thought crimes, you can sit in the comfort of your own chair, getting paid to surf the internet, and declare enough posts "offensive" to look productive. When you do show up to arrest someone, they're highly unlikely to be violent. It's a lot easier and safer than investigating burglaries.

neanda• 1 year ago

this is very important context

ndsipa_pomu6• 1 year ago

The other side of that coin is that burglaries are limited in that the criminals have to physically be present to commit the crime and that puts a hard limit on the number of victims. Posting incitements to commit violence on the internet is not inherently limited and can easily provoke riots based on complete falsehoods. There's also the much more dangerous issue of destroying democracy by misleading a large number of voters.

zugi2• 1 year ago

Misleading voters is what democracy is all about!

But more seriously, society has dealt with misinformation and disinformation for millenia and collectively decided that freedom of speech and the press were key factors in keeping democracy, and were a more vital concern than the threat of misinformation. To me, government deciding what is or isn't misinformation is a step away from democracy and towards tyranny. But I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the fine lines of freedom of speech.

throwaway77385• 1 year ago

Whatsapp messages?

It's pretty crucial to find out how these ended up with the police.

Did these people send Whatsapp messages to someone who didn't like the messages and this person then went to the police? In that case, it's back to the article and lack of definition within these laws.

If, however, the police got the whatsapp messages via some kind of mass-surveillance programme, then we have a big problem...

account-512• 1 year ago

WhatsApp claims to be end to end encrypted, if the police could crack that encryption we'd all be in trouble, and meta employees extremely bad at their jobs! Most likely your first guess is correct. Encryption means nothing when you have one of the unencrypted ends of the pipe.

justsomehnguy• 1 year ago

It's always amusing to hear the proponents of E2E who are completely ignore xkcd/538

skippyboxedhero7• 1 year ago

All of the cases that I have seen have been group chats. The Act in question is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malici... - and there is also a 2001 Act that I believe is used when the prosecutors want a custodial sentence. The application of this law to WhatsApp has been controversial.

It is also worth understanding that in the UK, the security services use specific events to push politicians (with the help of the media) into passing these laws. The Online Safety Act is a recent example, the media campaign was orchestrated by the media/police/security services, and there was a similar campaign behind the 2003 Act...every time. To imply that the laws are there to do anything other than reduce freedom is the wrong starting point.

pcrh11• 1 year ago

The comparison is made with America's First Amendment, which is a valuable piece of legislation.

How does the law in the US treat incitement to violence, as shown by some of the cases described, e.g. Among them were people who said things like “blow the mosque up” and “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. That probably would have been legal in America, says Gavin Phillipson of Bristol University, since it falls short of presenting a clear and imminent danger.

What would constitute "clear and imminent danger" in a online posting?

TheOtherHobbes• 1 year ago

Context helps.

The tweets appeared during an attempt to set off race riots in the UK, which was partly being organised on Twitter.

And some people had indeed tried to set fire to hotels.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/12/rotherham-ri...

So this wasn't random online muttering. It was a clear statement of encouragement and intent.

Compare with the much larger number of people who have been jailed for discussing peaceful protests against fossil fuels.

And the number of people - zero - who have been jailed for high profile disruptive protests against... changes to inheritance tax.

skippyboxedhero7• 1 year ago

The person in question did not say the latter. You have, presumably deliberately, decontextualized it. She said roughly what you said followed by "for all I care", and she also deleted the post a few minutes after.

(What some people may not understand: UK police are running a dragnet online now, it is unclear when this started but was in full force after Covid, you can post and immediately delete, you can post with five followers...they will find it, and will attempt to prosecute. People on here go mad when police in the US pick up drug addicts, the UK has a China-style operation aimed at the public, they are making 200-300 arrests a week, it is complete insanity).

Now compare this to what else people are seeing. Some people in the UK (I cannot say which ones) are subject to rules: benefit fraud, tax evasion, public disturbances everywhere..."community policing" so these laws are not enforced. A well-known paedophile politician was recently convicted for attempted rape and sexual assault, they got a sentence shorter than the person you are referring to above...a convicted paedophile. Some parts of the UK have given prosecutors guidelines not to give a custodial sentence to paedophiles. During the riots, whilst people were being arrested for tweeting, there was a video online of a policeman asking attendees of a local mosque to put their weapons back in the mosque...no arrests made. For people in the UK, the problem is not the danger of things being said online, the danger is things going on in the physical world around them. I don't think a reasonable person can fail to connect these two things, there is a reason why the police go after the innocent online rather than criminals.

pcrh11• 1 year ago

My question was more specific. I copied the quote from the Economist, a reliable publication.

So, assuming the posting was as written, would it fall under the "clear and imminent" criteria apparently used in the US?

crtasm3• 1 year ago

she also deleted the post a few minutes after.

This is incorrect.

"At the time she had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times, before she deleted it three and a half hours later. " - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o

you can post and immediately delete, you can post with five followers...they will find it, and will attempt to prosecute

Examples of this happening please?

kazinator• 1 year ago

The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school.

Well, what is the content of those e-mails?

Dear The Economist, your story is not worth the paper it isn't printed on without the goddamned specifics.

The content of those communications could well be reasonably actionable by police. Of course, those who were paid a visit by police will claim that they made nothing but some disparaging remarks.

It is an extraordinary claim that a school called the police over mere disparaging remarks, and that the police subsequently arrested someone on specific charges. Extraordinary claims require backing evidence.

A BBC story says that: "Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property." It's possible that the school simply distorted the facts to bring about an arrest, dragging the police into it.

That same county's own PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) made these decent statements:

"There has clearly been a fundamental breakdown in relationships between a school and parents that shouldn't have become a police matter."

and

"While people should be courteous and go through the proper channels when raising concerns about a public service, the public should be able to express their views without worrying they'll get a knock at the door from the police."

So The Economist simply made up this stuff about someone arrested over "disparaging remarks". There were allegations of harrassment and causing a nuisance. Maybe the police went a bit overboard, but they can't just ignore such allegations either. That's why the prank known as swatting works.

Another man criticised pro-Palestine protesters, tweeting: “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals.

That sounds like a legitimate target for investigation by police; it can be reasonably interpreted as a threat to carry out some action. If that individual did storm Heathrow and cause a violent incident, and it came to light that the police had known about his plan from an online posting, they would face heat.

Nothing here but rage clickbait.

AnimalMuppet• 1 year ago

I read that last example as saying that the pro-Palestinian protesters are one step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals, not that the person making the statement was.

I mean, maybe it's worth a look anyway, but not directly for the reason you stated.

The rest of your post I agree with.

LatteLazy• 1 year ago

I feel like this article makes a very poor argument for what should be an easy win.

I think the uk needs much more freedom of speech, both at a legal level and culturally (I am a Brit)

But the articles arguments are weak:

Someone calling for violent disorder during a riot probably should face prosecution. The fact the US constitution might protect such speech is irrelevant.

Similarly you can make a good argument that incitement of racial (religious etc) hatred should not be protected either. If you want to critique Islam or Israel go for it. But calling all Muslims or Jews or all women or gays or whatever other group names is likely to cause arguments and disturb the peace.

The article also focuses way too much on the USAs approach. This seems to me to have failed: on one hand the us is knee deep in conspiracy theories and far right rhetoric, and on the other people self censor endlessly (or face the consequences on an arbitrary and capricious basis).

If you’re going to argue for free speech, do it based on the inherent dangers of letting any one group decide what is banned, do it on the necessity of having clear quick communication of social changes and do it on the basis of the fastest correction of error. Not “because someone wrote down congress shall pass no law” and then a long list of judge’s arbitrarily decided what that did or didn’t protect over the next 200 years.

KaiserPro8• 1 year ago

The article is out by a factor of 10, from the data I can find its 900 arrests in 2 years.

The problem is that this act is also the way to prosecute death threats.

In the UK its generally frowned on to send threats of violence. Given that we also have a much lower homicide rate, I'd say thats a fair exchange. even if the act causes aberrations.

The article would be more convincing if it talked about the pub order act 2023, which allows the police to do this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro

But as thats protest law, it appears that it doesn't count as free speech.

Now the bits that are concerning are that the courts system is so underfunded that there is no legal support for defendants. Proper representation would help eliminate a large number of the stupid and frivolous cases. This is why legal aid needs to be for everyone. ITs not down to funding to determine guilt, its the courts.

The point about magistrates being untrained is bollocks. They are "lay" for a reason. Thats the bedrock of common law.

chrismcb• 1 year ago

So you think you have a lower homicide rate because you can procedure death threats? Is there really a correlation? That is how often did someone follow-up on a death threat? And how much does arresting people who threaten, reduce homicide? It is illegal to send death threats in the US as well

cobbzilla6• 1 year ago

The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.

mig39• 1 year ago

No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea?

Truth is a _defence_ against libel.

cobbzilla6• 1 year ago

I did have it technically wrong but practically correct.

Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.

burnt-resistor• 1 year ago

Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.

anonymousiam• 1 year ago

In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested.

https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...

ndsipa_pomu6• 1 year ago

That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion.

On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

BonoboIO• 1 year ago

Well … it’s even true in Germany, not libel but you can be convicted of „Volksverhetzung“ even if you state something that is true, like that a certain person of a religion would be today be called a pedophile. It’s literally stated in the religions holy book, but if the statement is ment to push racism it can be still a crime.

isaacremuant2• 1 year ago

Policing social media and citizens that are not a threat is easy. Policing actual crimes like sexual abuse rings, violent crime, vandalism, corporate crime, transit crime, gang ilegal proceedings, etc is harder so it generally won't happen.

The government will always be more interested in suppression of media and speech because that allows them to protect themselves.

_zagj• 1 year ago

On the plus side, the UK must be doing pretty well economically if they can afford to waste police and prosecutorial resources on people saying mean things on the internet.

ValveFan6969• 1 year ago

Complaining about restricting speech in a paywalled article is beautiful irony.

librasteve• 1 year ago

i suppose that the nasty surprise for Lucy Connelly was to post something (totally disgraceful) to a public forum that she would perhaps say to a small circle of friends and then find that it is considered to have a substantive influence on real rioters actually ready to set light to hotels with real people in them … even now I post stuff by way of semi private thoughts here and I do not fully appreciate the extent to and rapidity with which they will be shared … this is not to condone Lucy, but to wonder if she really did mean those vile things in practice or whether it was a very misguided emotional vent … should there be another level of proof of intent required in relation to social media … for sure her sentence is justified if she said those same words through a megaphone in front of the rioters ready to storm the hotel gates

i honestly don’t know - making people think twice about what they post is a social good and maybe we should keep the law simple and let the courts drive through this new harsh application

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

Related Stories