| ▲ | okeuro49 2 hours ago |
| In the UK 30 people are arrested a day for social media posts online. Only about 10 percent resulting in convictions. Police don't face criminal charges for this. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... |
|
| ▲ | kimixa 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Note that the quoted laws also cover things that would be restraining or harassment orders in the USA. |
|
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Those 30 aren’t arrested for just for writing “social media posts” but for possibly “harmful communication including incitement to terrorism and violence, online threats and abuse, and unwanted communication via email and other means” Of the 90% many will accept their fault and receive a caution or warning Edit: and none of those cases would involve pretrial remand/jail |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The vast majority of those arrested are just for mild insults, which are illegal under the censorious UK regime; not incitement to terrorism or threats. | | |
| ▲ | orwin 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm pretty sure it's threat of violence. Sure, in some of the cases, the threats are mild ('i will fuck you up'), but they are often repeated, which, to be clear, should be considered harassment in any case (and the fact that it still isn't in other countries is wild. Someone keeps sending me insults, I should be able to legally retaliate to make him stop, no?) | | |
| ▲ | kypro 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Do you live in the UK? This isn't true. Here in the UK it is illegal to be grossly offensive online. Racism for example will have you charged under the Communications Act 2003. |
| |
| ▲ | kypro 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not UK but in Germany you can face criminal prosecution for insulting the chancellor, https://x.com/Pirat_Nation/status/2056692341399081235 While here in the UK you can be arrested and charged for saying mean things about the royal family on private whatsapp groups, https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-09-07/five-former-met-p... |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Of the 90% many will accept their fault and receive a caution or warning Why do you need to arrest someone just to warn them? | |
| ▲ | cortesoft 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, this is exactly what the Tennessee sheriff accused this guy of doing. The Sheriff said that a meme referencing Trump saying that people 'needed to get over' a school shooting was actually a threat against the school. This is the problem with going after 'harmful communication'. It is not something that can be defined precisely, which allows government officials to choose to interpret it in whatever way they want when the enforce it. Obviously in these cases, the courts ruled against the official's interpretation, but that didn't stop this guy from having to spend 37 days in jail before they released him. As they say "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". While it is good that the UK version doesn't send you to pretrial jail, you still have to fight the charge. You have to respond, spend time in court, hire council, and hope you can convince the courts that your post doesn't fit the definition of incitement to violence. This has a chilling effect on free speech, even if all the cases are eventually thrown out. This is a tactic the Trump administration has used repeatedly. Go after people in court for things that are clearly not illegal. You make the person fight the charges, both in court and in the public eye, and then the cases are dismissed eventually and the administration moves on. All it does is make people factor this in when deciding how to act; is my act of protest worth having to fight this in court? | |
| ▲ | ImJamal 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And harmful communication can be "Fuck Hamas" which may be hateful, but not harmful. |
|
|
| ▲ | adampunk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That’s not Europe. They had a whole vote about it and everything! |
| |
|
| ▲ | pembrook 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is similar in Germany, where you can be arrested for simply posting an insult (non-violent) to a politician. No police will face charges if you aren't convicted. And you will NEVER get a settlement. I don't know why HN has become full of authoritarian anti-free-speech apologists. The current political divisions are turning people insane. |
|
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The UK has different speech laws than the United States. Presumably, the actions of the police making those arrests are within the scope of UK law. Even if 90% don't result in a conviction, the police may still be operating within the scope of their authority in those arrests. |
| |
| ▲ | okeuro49 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Linehan was arrested for making this post: > If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls This seems like a straightforward call to violence to me. And he was released after police ascertained that he had no intent to act on these statements. If someone made posts along the lines of "Christians are abusive, punch them" would it be surprising if CBP took them aside for further questioning? | | |
| ▲ | notahacker 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The other context is also that Linehan was awaiting trial for harassment and criminal damage against a 17 year old transperson at the time. And that he ultimately didn't get charged for the tweets, and did get friends in high places to whinge at the police on his behalf | |
| ▲ | owenmarshall 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | CBP, maybe not - there’s a lot more leeway for things that happen at the border, for better or worse. But in general US law sets a high bar for claims of incitement. Your hypothetical statement would certainly be considered protected speech. That is, of course, not to say that you would not be a victim of vindictive prosecution ;) | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, actually, it would be suprising if CBP took them aside for further questioning. That's not really how it's "supposed" to work. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-] | | Er, no, that's exactly how it's supposed to work: people who make violent threats have those threats more thoroughly assessed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | krige an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The suggestion that the actions within UK happen everywhere in Europe is just as misleading. | | | |
| ▲ | soperj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | UK voted not to be a part of Europe. Well, at least the England part of the UK did. | | |
| ▲ | meta_gunslinger an hour ago | parent [-] | | Are you thick? Europe is a geographical area, not the EU. It's like saying Switzerland is not in Europe. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Speak for yourself. I'd rather them be outside Europe as well, Scotland, Wales and Ireland can stay though. | | |
| ▲ | meta_gunslinger 17 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are making a normative claim (what you want). Not a nominal one (what is). Completely irrelevant, the UK cannot be outside of Europe geographically because of your feelings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | HDThoreaun an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The UK doesn’t have free speech |
