Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways(economist.com)
economist.com
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
191 comments
https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.c...
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.
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.
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
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
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.
In dicatorships there is no opportunity to speak out.
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.
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.
Some, mostly-western, US states have citizen-initiated state constitution amendment processes. [0]
I especially like Nevada's -- a majority in two successive general elections.
Sustainable democracy needs a jury nullification-like direct popular escape catch to solve legislatively-intractable issues (term limits, party primaries, redistricting, etc).
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_constitutional_amendment
I especially like Nevada's -- a majority in two successive general elections.
Sustainable democracy needs a jury nullification-like direct popular escape catch to solve legislatively-intractable issues (term limits, party primaries, redistricting, etc).
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_constitutional_amendment
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.
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.
Yes. Westminster has become more autoritarian.
But Julian Assange is not a good example, for many reasons. He didn't just criticise the government. He broke laws. Maybe for good reason.
Are there any examples in the UK of people being jailed for simply criticising the government? Excluding hate speech and civil disobedience?
But Julian Assange is not a good example, for many reasons. He didn't just criticise the government. He broke laws. Maybe for good reason.
Are there any examples in the UK of people being jailed for simply criticising the government? Excluding hate speech and civil disobedience?
> Excluding hate speech and civil disobedience?
Why would you exclude civil disobedience, one of the primary means by which you protest government?
Why would you exclude civil disobedience, one of the primary means by which you protest government?
Civil disobedience is illegal by definition. The point is to get arrested.
> 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...
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...
I'm not sure I follow the logic. I mean all the arguments are valid when taken separately, but the construct fails me. You mean, the dictatorship is then better because you might die but the survivors can have a revolution? Why couldn't then a democracy have a revolution as well, by exactly the same argumentation? And how's all this black and white thinking, like because democracy is not perfect, dictatorship becomes suddenly acceptable???
You're reading both too much into it.
First, I don't really consider what exists in "the west" as actual democracies. They are oligarchies or autocracies disguised as democracies instead. They've always been that, only now it's becoming more obvious.
> the dictatorship is then better
No, not at all. But it does have a clear path toward something better. This doesn't make it better, but it is a silver lining.
> Why couldn't then a democracy have a revolution as well
It could, but more frequently what happens are coups - and they descent into authoritarianism. Or the authoritarians get elected.
> And how's all this black and white thinking, like because democracy is not perfect, dictatorship becomes suddenly acceptable???
I definitely didn't say or think that.
First, I don't really consider what exists in "the west" as actual democracies. They are oligarchies or autocracies disguised as democracies instead. They've always been that, only now it's becoming more obvious.
> the dictatorship is then better
No, not at all. But it does have a clear path toward something better. This doesn't make it better, but it is a silver lining.
> Why couldn't then a democracy have a revolution as well
It could, but more frequently what happens are coups - and they descent into authoritarianism. Or the authoritarians get elected.
> And how's all this black and white thinking, like because democracy is not perfect, dictatorship becomes suddenly acceptable???
I definitely didn't say or think that.
Only a fool would think a dictatorship would "have a clear path toward something better".
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Is it? Having lived in one and having studied it extensively, I don't think there was a single moment in time since the coup all the way throughout the 21 years it lasted when the people fighting against had doubts about what they had to do and where they wanted to get.
Snowden and Assange did a lot more than speak out. They broke laws. Maybe they were justified. Maybe not.
But they were not prosecuted for voicing their opinions.
But they were not prosecuted for voicing their opinions.
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.
There is no switch front democracy to dictatorship, there is a transition.
As they said:
> Democracy requires that we fight for it. Otherwise it will disappear.
> Democracy requires that we fight for it. Otherwise it will disappear.
> you can criticize speech laws for now. And tbh, not sure to which extent it is true.
You are commenting on an article which critiques these laws. It's not the first either. So what you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.
You are commenting on an article which critiques these laws. It's not the first either. So what you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.
So how do you think dictatorships come to be?
I'm sick of all this doomsaying coming from the bench. If somebody thinks the dictatorship is around the corner, then please get on your ass and do something about it! Organize, vote, find your own way. Because the world has zero uses for more oracles, but a lot of use for _involved_ people.
> please get on your ass and do something about it!
I do! I wish more people would.
I do! I wish more people would.
I don't see Britain heading towards dictatorship. Certainly not under the current Labour government.
> 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".
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".
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
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk
When the candidate choices are almost completely plugged in for you, there is no meaningful choice either.
Fun fact, democracy doesn’t mean free society.
People can vote for less freedom
People can vote for less freedom
When you vote away foundational freedoms, you are no longer a democracy, at least not a liberal democracy.
As long as you can vote and the vote is recognized you are a democracy, there is a reason why liberal democracy and democracy aren’t just synonyms.
Foundational freedoms sounds like a fixed definition of freedoms but history showed it’s highly subjective and selective by culture and country.
Not all cultures value individual freedoms like western culture does, and few cultures grant all their freedoms to people outside their culture or country.
Societies always have to balance between what’s good for all, most, some and one.
Foundational freedoms sounds like a fixed definition of freedoms but history showed it’s highly subjective and selective by culture and country.
Not all cultures value individual freedoms like western culture does, and few cultures grant all their freedoms to people outside their culture or country.
Societies always have to balance between what’s good for all, most, some and one.
Illiberal democracies are also democracies if we treat 1950s era US, Australia, UK, and Canada as democracies.
Much of the Western world only saw a shift to Liberal Democracy (as in the enshrinement of civil liberties and limits to majoritarianism) in the 1960s to 1990s.
Liberal Democracy can be protected only if it's norms are enshrined in jurisprudence, and a lot of Liberal Democracies like the UK didn't do so.
Much of the Western world only saw a shift to Liberal Democracy (as in the enshrinement of civil liberties and limits to majoritarianism) in the 1960s to 1990s.
Liberal Democracy can be protected only if it's norms are enshrined in jurisprudence, and a lot of Liberal Democracies like the UK didn't do so.
[deleted]
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.
"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
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.
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.
I think the entire West is experiencing this problem. Things like immigration laws are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side. It's a very sticky problem. The Nomenklatura of the USSR is probably the most similar description.
At least in the US, we have discovered an even more complex situation where many of our government organizational low-mid-low/high level leaders all lean left, same for judges, but then our supreme court leans right as well as high level leaders (appointed by right president). It's as off the extreme political polarization our nation suffers from has also manifested itself in our own institutions.
> are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side
"Fixing" that is an awfully slippery slope towards dictatorship though.
The entire reason that system exists -- to preserve competence and skills in government despite political leadership change and to provide independent checks on elected officials' power -- is because of historical abuses by elected officials.
Ergo, I'm enormously suspicious of suggestions about tearing down the barriers to change...
... because those barriers exist for a damned good reason.
Imho, people should talk more about adjusting the balance in the system, but preserving all the independent components, and less about vilifying specific pieces of the balance of power.
"Fixing" that is an awfully slippery slope towards dictatorship though.
The entire reason that system exists -- to preserve competence and skills in government despite political leadership change and to provide independent checks on elected officials' power -- is because of historical abuses by elected officials.
Ergo, I'm enormously suspicious of suggestions about tearing down the barriers to change...
... because those barriers exist for a damned good reason.
Imho, people should talk more about adjusting the balance in the system, but preserving all the independent components, and less about vilifying specific pieces of the balance of power.
I am concerned about how lawyers may be a closed off group. Especially with grads from the top law schools who often work at NGOs or become judges in high courts that end up deciding major things. I think precedent could be set in a way that reflects the tastes of a small and detached group of people.
That's literally what we want in a rule of law system -- people more beholden to the legal system than to common concerns of voters.
Put another way, the role of the legal system is to be a linter for the messy / incomplete / illegal reality of legislative and executive desires.
Put another way, the role of the legal system is to be a linter for the messy / incomplete / illegal reality of legislative and executive desires.
ok I think being independent is fine, what I meant was a little different. Let me just ask you something instead which might clarify my thoughts. What did you have in mind when you said dictatorship? Like what is the historical precedent you are basing that on?
I'm not sure it can be attributed to political parties in the UK.
By most standards, the British political tradition has remained paternalistic in it's mindset, and a lot of the shifts in civil liberties happened fairly late (1980s-90s) and without the requisite judicial scaffolding being built in place.
Furthermore, a lot of the same powers and institutions used for internal security during the Troubles were redeployed during the GWOT and never pushed back against legally speaking.
For example, London was the first major city to deploy centralized CCTV surveillance en masse.
And this isn't a UK only thing - across Europe, mass surveillance laws and government perogative are much stronger than their equivalents in the US, and given tensions on the eastern border of EU+ due to a belligerent neighbor like Russia and Azerbaijan using grey zone tactics, I think we might see a further regression on this front, because NatSec will always trump liberties.
By most standards, we're in an interregnum period similar to the 1930s, the "Dreadnought Wars" (1906-1914), or the 1950s that can spill over.
By most standards, the British political tradition has remained paternalistic in it's mindset, and a lot of the shifts in civil liberties happened fairly late (1980s-90s) and without the requisite judicial scaffolding being built in place.
Furthermore, a lot of the same powers and institutions used for internal security during the Troubles were redeployed during the GWOT and never pushed back against legally speaking.
For example, London was the first major city to deploy centralized CCTV surveillance en masse.
And this isn't a UK only thing - across Europe, mass surveillance laws and government perogative are much stronger than their equivalents in the US, and given tensions on the eastern border of EU+ due to a belligerent neighbor like Russia and Azerbaijan using grey zone tactics, I think we might see a further regression on this front, because NatSec will always trump liberties.
By most standards, we're in an interregnum period similar to the 1930s, the "Dreadnought Wars" (1906-1914), or the 1950s that can spill over.
Yes, the Troubles are a huge factor, the security services play a huge and unwelcome part in our political process. I think I mentioned elsewhere, I assume most people are familiar with this but most of the media campaigns that accompany legislation are pushed by the police/security services.
Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it happened nearly ten years ago now, it went quiet for years and then suddenly sparked back up again, parents put out in front of the media...every time.
And it is a legacy of things like the Troubles where you have massive internal political instability and these kind of things become normal. These powers aren't formal though, it is all informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).
Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it happened nearly ten years ago now, it went quiet for years and then suddenly sparked back up again, parents put out in front of the media...every time.
And it is a legacy of things like the Troubles where you have massive internal political instability and these kind of things become normal. These powers aren't formal though, it is all informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).
> Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it happened nearly ten years ago now, it went quiet for years and then suddenly sparked back up again, parents put out in front of the media...every time.
That's actually a bit of a dumber story than that.
Basically, a well connected and knighted documentary maker (Beeban Kidron) made pornography regulation her sole personal mission after she became a mother.
The UK being a fairly small political playground and her significant network thanks to Miramax made it easy for her to lobby and get private and public support in the UK and California.
Once she was inducted in the House of Lords in 2012, she went gung ho lobbying for it.
> informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).
Yep. A lot of the Cold War era rules and regulations remain in place
That's actually a bit of a dumber story than that.
Basically, a well connected and knighted documentary maker (Beeban Kidron) made pornography regulation her sole personal mission after she became a mother.
The UK being a fairly small political playground and her significant network thanks to Miramax made it easy for her to lobby and get private and public support in the UK and California.
Once she was inducted in the House of Lords in 2012, she went gung ho lobbying for it.
> informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).
Yep. A lot of the Cold War era rules and regulations remain in place
Sweetness, sweetness, I was only joking when I said
I'd like to smash every tooth in your head.
Sweetness, sweetness, I was only joking when I said
By rights, you should be bludgeoned in your bed.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=u-JDl5IeDIY&si=9ibHizB9IqD...
I'd like to smash every tooth in your head.
Sweetness, sweetness, I was only joking when I said
By rights, you should be bludgeoned in your bed.
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=u-JDl5IeDIY&si=9ibHizB9IqD...
A big part of this is caused by (as I understand it, open to correction!) the UK's fundamental lack of free speech rights (by individuals and groups).
The UK has free(ish) speech, that usually works well enough in practice, for most things.
But at the end of the day if the UK government and/or security services and/or wealthy people want to really put their foot on suppressing speech... they have legal tools to do so.
The UK has never really squared the circle on free speech even and especially when it's inconvenient to power.
That's a binary right. Either you have it, or you don't.
The UK has free(ish) speech, that usually works well enough in practice, for most things.
But at the end of the day if the UK government and/or security services and/or wealthy people want to really put their foot on suppressing speech... they have legal tools to do so.
The UK has never really squared the circle on free speech even and especially when it's inconvenient to power.
That's a binary right. Either you have it, or you don't.
> elected officials have limited powers to direct civil servants and cannot remove all but a handful of civil servants.
On the other hand politicians frequently blame the civil servants as well.
In reality, parliament is sovereign, if they really wanted to reform the civil service they could do it via changing the laws.
On the other hand politicians frequently blame the civil servants as well.
In reality, parliament is sovereign, if they really wanted to reform the civil service they could do it via changing the laws.
Okay...and you are presumably aware that every government since the 60s has tried to reform the Civil Service? And how has that gone?
Parliament is not sovereign because this is an administrative issue. As I explained, elected officials have limited direct control over ministries. And an even bigger issue is that the Civil Service is unionized, so if you were actually looking to reform it wholesale then you would have to shut down government for months with irreparable damage done in the media by civil servants briefing daily against you...so I am not aware of a way to do this. You can't reform ministries, you can't reform the whole thing...so what is the solution?
The reason why politicians blame the civil servants is because they are bad. No-one thinks otherwise. The past three heads of the civil service have acknowledged there are massive issues with competence at every level, this is not new. But it isn't possible to reform.
I am not sure how anyone can think Parliament is sovereign in this matter either. It makes no sense based on the evidence of repeated issues with competence and multiple governments being unable to fix that.
Parliament is not sovereign because this is an administrative issue. As I explained, elected officials have limited direct control over ministries. And an even bigger issue is that the Civil Service is unionized, so if you were actually looking to reform it wholesale then you would have to shut down government for months with irreparable damage done in the media by civil servants briefing daily against you...so I am not aware of a way to do this. You can't reform ministries, you can't reform the whole thing...so what is the solution?
The reason why politicians blame the civil servants is because they are bad. No-one thinks otherwise. The past three heads of the civil service have acknowledged there are massive issues with competence at every level, this is not new. But it isn't possible to reform.
I am not sure how anyone can think Parliament is sovereign in this matter either. It makes no sense based on the evidence of repeated issues with competence and multiple governments being unable to fix that.
No system is perfect or never in need of reform, including the UK civil service.
However, recent attacks on the civil service from the political right are almost always a consequence of reality colliding with politics, i.e. the civil service pointing out that ministerial decisions may be unlawful, etc. There are legions of examples of this conflict arising under the previous Tory government.
As such, it is indeed within the power of parliament to change the law so that their political objectives may be met. It is not up to the civil service to break the law when that is convenient to ministers.
However, recent attacks on the civil service from the political right are almost always a consequence of reality colliding with politics, i.e. the civil service pointing out that ministerial decisions may be unlawful, etc. There are legions of examples of this conflict arising under the previous Tory government.
As such, it is indeed within the power of parliament to change the law so that their political objectives may be met. It is not up to the civil service to break the law when that is convenient to ministers.
The tories activly campaigned on the platform of regulating internet speech.
> Windrush was one, there were many others
mate, windrush was down to May and her spads. They knew the problems, but decided that the press was worth it.
> the current level of immigration is supported by ~3% of the population
Immigration has halved this year.
The problem is that has tradeoffs, like social care isn't going work anymore.
I understand your frustrations. I hate that no matter who I vote for I seem to get reform-lite dipshits.
Thats not the fault of the civil service (although there is an entire subject in it's self) thats the fault of the press and political class being too close.
> Windrush was one, there were many others
mate, windrush was down to May and her spads. They knew the problems, but decided that the press was worth it.
> the current level of immigration is supported by ~3% of the population
Immigration has halved this year.
The problem is that has tradeoffs, like social care isn't going work anymore.
I understand your frustrations. I hate that no matter who I vote for I seem to get reform-lite dipshits.
Thats not the fault of the civil service (although there is an entire subject in it's self) thats the fault of the press and political class being too close.
Exactly.
I would read about what actually happened. There were multiple failures in the Home Office, in particular some statistics were incorrectly reported by the Rudd (I am not sure why you are talking about May) based on figures she was told by civil servants, she then had to resign. Not only that but the correct figures were actually leaked to the press shortly after (this is something that has happened in the Home Office before).
Okay, and it has halved to the highest level ever. If you want to have ones of these interminable discussions about your favourite politicians, please stop. I am not interested in hearing which colour rosette you prefer, and how everything is the fault of the other guys. It is complete and total nonsense. The reason why we have the system we have is because it is too easy for a politician to claim they will fix everything (the drop in immigration is nothing to do with Starmer either, it was to do with the Tories whose legacy on immigration is unspeakable, it has halved to a level that is unbelievably high).
Yes, it is the fault of the civil service because, as I assume you don't understand, ministers legally have a limited set of options when they are making policy (this was one of the issues the Tories faced, Rwanda was a variation of a policy that had been explored since the early 2000s...it wasn't a new policy, which is why Labour are now going down the same route...we had an election, same policies). They come into office, explain to the civil servants what they want to do, and then they are given a choice of policies...if a minister chooses not to one of these things then the policy can later be challenged in the courts, and legal discovery can be used to overturn the policy if there is no legal basis for it (essentially, whether it was approved by the civil service).
Every new government comes in finding the same thing. You are already seeing people in Labour complain about Reeves...well, guess what? There are no alternatives. Your comment about Reform-lite is ridiculous, every party is Reform, every party is Labour, every party is the Tories. The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting has any impact and will change anything...it won't. A lot of the briefing that the press get is from the civil service too...I can't understand how you can talk about immigration and then complain about the press...why do you think Johnson increased immigration? The press, relentless briefing from lobbyists, relentless pressure from civil servants in the Home Office briefing against the government (the Home Office is notorious for this btw, as I just explained above, I remember Charles Clarke complaining about this...unbelivable).
I would read about what actually happened. There were multiple failures in the Home Office, in particular some statistics were incorrectly reported by the Rudd (I am not sure why you are talking about May) based on figures she was told by civil servants, she then had to resign. Not only that but the correct figures were actually leaked to the press shortly after (this is something that has happened in the Home Office before).
Okay, and it has halved to the highest level ever. If you want to have ones of these interminable discussions about your favourite politicians, please stop. I am not interested in hearing which colour rosette you prefer, and how everything is the fault of the other guys. It is complete and total nonsense. The reason why we have the system we have is because it is too easy for a politician to claim they will fix everything (the drop in immigration is nothing to do with Starmer either, it was to do with the Tories whose legacy on immigration is unspeakable, it has halved to a level that is unbelievably high).
Yes, it is the fault of the civil service because, as I assume you don't understand, ministers legally have a limited set of options when they are making policy (this was one of the issues the Tories faced, Rwanda was a variation of a policy that had been explored since the early 2000s...it wasn't a new policy, which is why Labour are now going down the same route...we had an election, same policies). They come into office, explain to the civil servants what they want to do, and then they are given a choice of policies...if a minister chooses not to one of these things then the policy can later be challenged in the courts, and legal discovery can be used to overturn the policy if there is no legal basis for it (essentially, whether it was approved by the civil service).
Every new government comes in finding the same thing. You are already seeing people in Labour complain about Reeves...well, guess what? There are no alternatives. Your comment about Reform-lite is ridiculous, every party is Reform, every party is Labour, every party is the Tories. The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting has any impact and will change anything...it won't. A lot of the briefing that the press get is from the civil service too...I can't understand how you can talk about immigration and then complain about the press...why do you think Johnson increased immigration? The press, relentless briefing from lobbyists, relentless pressure from civil servants in the Home Office briefing against the government (the Home Office is notorious for this btw, as I just explained above, I remember Charles Clarke complaining about this...unbelivable).
> ministers legally have a limited set of options
Yes, they have to make decisions that conform to UK laws. Rwanda is/was such a stupid idea that even if ministers had removed the relevant laws preventing them from implementing it, it would have cost hundreds of thousands per person, and not solved the issues it was supposed to.
The initial idea was, instantly deport as many people as possible (without due process, basically anyone who arrives without a visa is instantly classed as an illegal migrant, regardless of circumstances, and sent back to country of origin, even if that means death), and those that somehow do manage to claim asylum, send them to rwanda.
The policy then was "honed" as follows, so that it was actually legal, but no less stupid:
1) make it effectively illegal to claim asylum
2) buy housing in rwanda to house all successful asylum seekers, but only upto low thousands
2.1) pay over inflated costs to keep those people there for ever. They can't work there, so we have to pay them for ever.
3) make it effectively impossible to process any asylum claims.
4) because its impossible to process claims, you cant deport failed claimants, because they've not been processed
5) exhaust all short term housing in the UK for claimants, because they can't be processed and deported.
6) pay ever increasing bills for short term housing, and piss off locals, because the number of claimants increases for ever, because they can't be processed.
7) claimants abscond and are never seen again, living without a paper trail in the UK
It was so fucking mind bendingly stupid and expensive, you too would try and stop it.
Of course the press and the twitter sphere loved it, because it was a deterent. Regardless of the cost or stupidity.
What labour have floated, is that failed claimants be immediately moved to a 3rd party country pending appeal. Which much less stupid, but still expensive. I imagine it'll be dropped. The solution is to actually process asylum claims properly(which is what is being done, hence why those migrant camps are reducing).
> The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting
You seem to suggest that its the civil service that runs policy. I really would suggest reading the actual laws that are passed, and the research provided to the commons library. Civil servants can only do what the law allows. And often, those laws are fucking stupid, and done to chase a headline (see johnson/sunak)
Labour as not reform, you and I both know that. Labour are just shit and have painted themselves into a corner. Moreover, the current PM doesn't acutally publically stand for anything, which means that making decisions as a minister is very hard. (its partly the same reason sunak was so useless, most of it was he had useless ministers)
> why do you think Johnson increased immigration
because we have a chronic skills shortage, and to keep a lid on wage rises, and to stop the care sector grinding to a complete halt, we needed immigration.
Look, the issue is this, public finances are fucked. Until taxes are reformed, or we somehow grow the economy 10%, everything will be salami sliced to nothing.
both the tories and labour were dishonest about taxation. The press failed to actually tackle them on it. Mind you, if they had, would people listen. Nobody likes to bother about public finances.
"everyone is the same" is just not true, thats how we get extremists, like reform.
Yes, they have to make decisions that conform to UK laws. Rwanda is/was such a stupid idea that even if ministers had removed the relevant laws preventing them from implementing it, it would have cost hundreds of thousands per person, and not solved the issues it was supposed to.
The initial idea was, instantly deport as many people as possible (without due process, basically anyone who arrives without a visa is instantly classed as an illegal migrant, regardless of circumstances, and sent back to country of origin, even if that means death), and those that somehow do manage to claim asylum, send them to rwanda.
The policy then was "honed" as follows, so that it was actually legal, but no less stupid:
1) make it effectively illegal to claim asylum
2) buy housing in rwanda to house all successful asylum seekers, but only upto low thousands
2.1) pay over inflated costs to keep those people there for ever. They can't work there, so we have to pay them for ever.
3) make it effectively impossible to process any asylum claims.
4) because its impossible to process claims, you cant deport failed claimants, because they've not been processed
5) exhaust all short term housing in the UK for claimants, because they can't be processed and deported.
6) pay ever increasing bills for short term housing, and piss off locals, because the number of claimants increases for ever, because they can't be processed.
7) claimants abscond and are never seen again, living without a paper trail in the UK
It was so fucking mind bendingly stupid and expensive, you too would try and stop it.
Of course the press and the twitter sphere loved it, because it was a deterent. Regardless of the cost or stupidity.
What labour have floated, is that failed claimants be immediately moved to a 3rd party country pending appeal. Which much less stupid, but still expensive. I imagine it'll be dropped. The solution is to actually process asylum claims properly(which is what is being done, hence why those migrant camps are reducing).
> The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting
You seem to suggest that its the civil service that runs policy. I really would suggest reading the actual laws that are passed, and the research provided to the commons library. Civil servants can only do what the law allows. And often, those laws are fucking stupid, and done to chase a headline (see johnson/sunak)
Labour as not reform, you and I both know that. Labour are just shit and have painted themselves into a corner. Moreover, the current PM doesn't acutally publically stand for anything, which means that making decisions as a minister is very hard. (its partly the same reason sunak was so useless, most of it was he had useless ministers)
> why do you think Johnson increased immigration
because we have a chronic skills shortage, and to keep a lid on wage rises, and to stop the care sector grinding to a complete halt, we needed immigration.
Look, the issue is this, public finances are fucked. Until taxes are reformed, or we somehow grow the economy 10%, everything will be salami sliced to nothing.
both the tories and labour were dishonest about taxation. The press failed to actually tackle them on it. Mind you, if they had, would people listen. Nobody likes to bother about public finances.
"everyone is the same" is just not true, thats how we get extremists, like reform.
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)
- 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)
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.
But so does America. Quite a few people (non citizens so far), have been arrested for criticising the actions of the current Israeli government.
I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.
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.
True.
Often the problems with free-speech in another country are used as a distraction from whatever is happening at home. In all directions.
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.
> 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.
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.
In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media.
The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom.
Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable rights, in 2016, almost 9 people every day were detained and questioned for online speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.
Britons have been jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun. Or for saying illegals should be mass-deported. They have also been jailed for things that probably are closer to hate speech but that is just as bad.
Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn when such a basically unjust law is allowed to stand.
The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom.
Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable rights, in 2016, almost 9 people every day were detained and questioned for online speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.
Britons have been jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun. Or for saying illegals should be mass-deported. They have also been jailed for things that probably are closer to hate speech but that is just as bad.
Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn when such a basically unjust law is allowed to stand.
> inalienable rights
The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence...
In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right.
[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
[1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home
The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence...
In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right.
[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
[1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home
That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.
There is no such thing as an unalienable right or as a human right.
Rights are simply the expression of the interests of certain classes at a certain point in time.
That said, I struggle to find "free speech" a compelling inalienable right when it's what has directly led to the disaster befalling the Americas in this very moment. Especially since the American conception of "free speech" isn't just to be able to express oneself, but to actually have one's words be accepted no matter what.
Rights are simply the expression of the interests of certain classes at a certain point in time.
That said, I struggle to find "free speech" a compelling inalienable right when it's what has directly led to the disaster befalling the Americas in this very moment. Especially since the American conception of "free speech" isn't just to be able to express oneself, but to actually have one's words be accepted no matter what.
Okay, I think we have a fundamental disagreement in our first principles that won't be reconciled. I hope people who believe as you do live abroad and do not bring those views to America where y'all could vote. Nothing personal but that's not a reconcilable difference.
You would have to point out where the current law in the UK is unjust.
The current law surrounding "inalienable rights" in the UK is based on the ECHR that I linked to.
The current law surrounding "inalienable rights" in the UK is based on the ECHR that I linked to.
I believe that America's standard of imminent lawless action is the only even remotely-okay circumstance under which you can punish speech directly. The ECHR really doesn't have any bearing on what is right and wrong; laws do not determine morality.
"due process" is one part of justice, one that is administered by the courts (even if effected by the police/bailiffs). "allowing a law to stand" is another part of justice, one that is administered by the legislative.
> Police Scotland posted on its Twitter,
is a different body and has different laws to England.
The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications"
Actually is gross offense.
> speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.
For gross offense, or threatening communications? Because there is a world of difference. Its the same act that is used to procecute someone sending death threats as it is for "gross offense"
> jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun.
yeah but you missed out the other bits. Like the photo it was attached to, the other words he wrote, and _when_ he wrote it
> for saying illegals should be mass-deported
yeah I couldnt find that one.
> Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn
It is worth a dam, because thats how law works.
is a different body and has different laws to England.
The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications"
Actually is gross offense.
> speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.
For gross offense, or threatening communications? Because there is a world of difference. Its the same act that is used to procecute someone sending death threats as it is for "gross offense"
> jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun.
yeah but you missed out the other bits. Like the photo it was attached to, the other words he wrote, and _when_ he wrote it
> for saying illegals should be mass-deported
yeah I couldnt find that one.
> Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn
It is worth a dam, because thats how law works.
Did you miss the part where I specified the Met Police often do the same. Let me give you an example of "gross offense": "commentary from you regarding the rainbow flags which represent the LBGT community." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl4VM7VXkAM8-km.jpg:large
"Offending someone" being a crime is basically immoral.
Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative Party councilor, was the one jailed for her comments around mass deportation. 31 months. These statements wouldn't get someone investigated, let alone jailed, in America.
Due process isn't worth a damn morally if we are discussing unjust laws. Saying "but he got due process" doesn't matter if the law that is being applied is deeply, fundamentally, and inexcusably reprehensible.
"Offending someone" being a crime is basically immoral.
Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative Party councilor, was the one jailed for her comments around mass deportation. 31 months. These statements wouldn't get someone investigated, let alone jailed, in America.
Due process isn't worth a damn morally if we are discussing unjust laws. Saying "but he got due process" doesn't matter if the law that is being applied is deeply, fundamentally, and inexcusably reprehensible.
> was the one jailed for her comments
The one that fanned huge fucking protests, the one that caused a massive spike in violence, many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage? That old poor innocent councillors wife?
Britain and the US are very different. In the same way that a lot of americans think that school shootings are a fair exchange for second amendment rights, this is a fair exchange for not having shitstirring fucks whip up tensions.
Look, you're not going to be convinced by any of this, because of where (I assume) you grew up. But think of it this way, how many of those constitutional protections Americans have now, have been broken by the current executive branch of the USA? what practical constitutional checks and balances have actually worked when they are being tested?
The 6th amendment appears to not hold with anyone who ICE touches. Personally I'd be much more excised about the USA right now, given that it cant even practice what it's currently trying to preach.
Also, if you want analysis of why Connolly got that sentence: https://davidallengreen.com/2025/05/explaining-a-31-month-se...
The one that fanned huge fucking protests, the one that caused a massive spike in violence, many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage? That old poor innocent councillors wife?
Britain and the US are very different. In the same way that a lot of americans think that school shootings are a fair exchange for second amendment rights, this is a fair exchange for not having shitstirring fucks whip up tensions.
Look, you're not going to be convinced by any of this, because of where (I assume) you grew up. But think of it this way, how many of those constitutional protections Americans have now, have been broken by the current executive branch of the USA? what practical constitutional checks and balances have actually worked when they are being tested?
The 6th amendment appears to not hold with anyone who ICE touches. Personally I'd be much more excised about the USA right now, given that it cant even practice what it's currently trying to preach.
Also, if you want analysis of why Connolly got that sentence: https://davidallengreen.com/2025/05/explaining-a-31-month-se...
Right I am not actually interested in whether it was legal under british law. My point is british law is unjust and fundamentally illiberal in this respect. Anything that wouldn't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of "imminent lawless action" is unconscionably bad.
All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...
This is from The Economist of all places not some right-wing rag. Please do not stick your head in the sand on this to "own the rightoids" or whatever. If you're a lefty oppose it on grounds of how it's used against the pro-palestinians.
P.S. I don't see why you're bringing up the trump admin's actions like one bad thing existing means another can't. Both things can be bad. We can oppose both things. It's not that hard.
All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...
This is from The Economist of all places not some right-wing rag. Please do not stick your head in the sand on this to "own the rightoids" or whatever. If you're a lefty oppose it on grounds of how it's used against the pro-palestinians.
P.S. I don't see why you're bringing up the trump admin's actions like one bad thing existing means another can't. Both things can be bad. We can oppose both things. It's not that hard.
> can you explain the other 29 arrests that day
No because I'm trying to find where that stat comes from. Also as I've pointed out, gross offence is only one offence, the communications act also covered fraud and a whole bunch of other things that are much less contentious.
> own the rightoids"
The extremes don't care about justice, only logical fallacies and being technically correct in the eyes of their peers.
No because I'm trying to find where that stat comes from. Also as I've pointed out, gross offence is only one offence, the communications act also covered fraud and a whole bunch of other things that are much less contentious.
> own the rightoids"
The extremes don't care about justice, only logical fallacies and being technically correct in the eyes of their peers.
The number today is 30 arrests per day.
ok, can you provide a link to where that number comes from?
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"
Vance isn't running policy. He is the vice president.
Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.
Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.
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.
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.
Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
First: "Muddled laws give them wide discretion"
Second: You are responsible for your actions, even if you're just following orders.
Second: You are responsible for your actions, even if you're just following orders.
[deleted]
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.
> And the second goes for the people affected by the muddled laws too, who have way more discretion than the police.
Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful?
We're discussing here laws where someone, whether the police or some other authority figure, is going to be deciding whether you're subject to them based not on plain and objective facts, but on subjective criteria - which inevitably, and unaccountably, will include your other activities. They're designed to offer a fig leaf so that you can be prosecuted for something whose punishment is comparatively palatable, without having to acknowledge the actual cause for offense.
Of course one can argue whether any particular law falls in this category, but I think it's difficult to argue that the designed consequences of such laws are the fault of the person subject to them.
Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful?
We're discussing here laws where someone, whether the police or some other authority figure, is going to be deciding whether you're subject to them based not on plain and objective facts, but on subjective criteria - which inevitably, and unaccountably, will include your other activities. They're designed to offer a fig leaf so that you can be prosecuted for something whose punishment is comparatively palatable, without having to acknowledge the actual cause for offense.
Of course one can argue whether any particular law falls in this category, but I think it's difficult to argue that the designed consequences of such laws are the fault of the person subject to them.
> Are you arguing that the fault for being on the wrong side of the powerful lies with the people who could have just decided not to be on the wrong side of the powerful?
No.
I saying that people are responsible for their actions.
In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to.
I'm not really sure I understand the rest of what you're talking about, so I do t want to assume anything, but it sounds like you're after perfects laws no one can misinterprete? I don't think that's possible. Bug free software will likely come first.
Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.
No.
I saying that people are responsible for their actions.
In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to.
I'm not really sure I understand the rest of what you're talking about, so I do t want to assume anything, but it sounds like you're after perfects laws no one can misinterprete? I don't think that's possible. Bug free software will likely come first.
Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.
> I saying that people are responsible for their actions.
> In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to.
Right (although I think that the latter sentence is, first, not limited to western societies, and, second, not ubiquitous in them), but the issue here is not whether people should escape consequences for actions that have been democratically deemed unacceptable (through direct democracy, or through people electing representatives who make the relevant laws). Rather it is, I think, the danger of using the cover of one action, that people have democratically agreed is unacceptable but that the makers or enforcers of law are not actually seeking to curtail, to regulate another action, that has not been democratically agreed to be unacceptable, and might actually be professed to be allowed or desirable while being indirectly and sometimes covertly suppressed.
> Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.
No matter what your philosophy of society and the role of law, it strikes me as hard to have such a philosophy that is of any use in actually helping to govern a society without paying attention to power, who has it, and who doesn't.
> In western society (democratic) laws are implemented by people put in a position of authority by the very people those laws apply to.
Right (although I think that the latter sentence is, first, not limited to western societies, and, second, not ubiquitous in them), but the issue here is not whether people should escape consequences for actions that have been democratically deemed unacceptable (through direct democracy, or through people electing representatives who make the relevant laws). Rather it is, I think, the danger of using the cover of one action, that people have democratically agreed is unacceptable but that the makers or enforcers of law are not actually seeking to curtail, to regulate another action, that has not been democratically agreed to be unacceptable, and might actually be professed to be allowed or desirable while being indirectly and sometimes covertly suppressed.
> Either way the conversation about power and who has it and who doesn't doesn't strike me as helpful.
No matter what your philosophy of society and the role of law, it strikes me as hard to have such a philosophy that is of any use in actually helping to govern a society without paying attention to power, who has it, and who doesn't.
So are you suggesting that the enforcement of the laws in question, per the article, are actually a cover to suppress something else? If you are you'll need to spell it out for me since what the article covers as criminal seems to fit what the laws state as criminal.
Power balances or plays in any society are inevitable. I just don't see it as relevant in this scenario. Certainly it's fashionable today to demonstrate how hard done by you are but in this context the people affected in the article are certainly inconvenienced by police at their door but hardly any of them that I can see were powerless and suffered because if it. Everyone can have their day in court. It's the courts that decide whether you're guilty, whether the police were over reaching; case law is full of such things.
Power balances or plays in any society are inevitable. I just don't see it as relevant in this scenario. Certainly it's fashionable today to demonstrate how hard done by you are but in this context the people affected in the article are certainly inconvenienced by police at their door but hardly any of them that I can see were powerless and suffered because if it. Everyone can have their day in court. It's the courts that decide whether you're guilty, whether the police were over reaching; case law is full of such things.
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...
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...
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.
Over here we've seen this with various jurisdictions decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs by simply not policing it.
It's different in Britain. If something is reported it has to be looked into. The article covers this. More reporting more investigations.
Totally. When you give police anywhere discretion, they run with it.
The article addresses that.
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.
West Yorkshire Police tried to arrest an autistic child for saying a female police officer looked like her lesbian nana on private property.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895
No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895
No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask.
Either way tit for tat examples help nothing.
Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.
Either way tit for tat examples help nothing.
Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.
Perhaps because the police aren't arresting people over mere Tweets, or their speech alone. Perhaps, just perhaps, conduct or actions or monetary support are also involved, but the headlines can only trumpet the reason for arrest, or the stated charges.
JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire.
So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war?
The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.
JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire.
So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war?
The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.
JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.
Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?
It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage.
But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else?
So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350
But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else?
So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1775187763995824350
I agree but my point was not that my point was you can find tit for tat examples all over the place. It doesn't move the original conversation on. Point in fact, this morning in the news, a MET employee was reinstated after getting sacked for gross misconduct over comments apparently made whilst dealing with calls to the police. This time they're critised for the opposite of doing what they've been critised in the OP article for. Lose, lose for the police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14ke41yg18o
> But that is surely besides the point?
The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for.
But also, her not getting arrested does the same.
So she was in a win-win position.
The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for.
But also, her not getting arrested does the same.
So she was in a win-win position.
At the time they really didn't, the underlying issue was recently decided in the Supreme Court.
But yes I get and agree with your point. And it also highlights an important aspect often ignored in all this. The courts decide a person's guilt irrespective of police action, case law builds up around laws that are broad and easy to misinterprete.
But yes I get and agree with your point. And it also highlights an important aspect often ignored in all this. The courts decide a person's guilt irrespective of police action, case law builds up around laws that are broad and easy to misinterprete.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this is very important context
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
It's always amusing to hear the proponents of E2E who are completely ignore xkcd/538
If only Orwell was still alive to see this.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
(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.
>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?
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?
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?
So, assuming the posting was as written, would it fall under the "clear and imminent" criteria apparently used in the US?
It would not if there wasn't proof that there was actual planning. That said, you would most likely be monitored by local and state law enforcement.
A similar case happened in Central Illinois a couple years ago, where threats were posted but arrests were not made until the threats moved to actual action.
A similar case happened in Central Illinois a couple years ago, where threats were posted but arrests were not made until the threats moved to actual action.
In this case, the threats did move to action....
The person making the threat needs to be linked to the one taking the action (either via direct or indirect participation).
In this case, she was found guilty of "sending a communication threatening death or serious harm".
>Sweeney wrote: "It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6x105wgz5o
>Sweeney wrote: "It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6x105wgz5o
Not in the US's case. A direct link would be needed.
American jurisprudence on speech leans towards Free Speech Absolutism [0] due to jurisprudence from the 1970s-2000s, and the test for "clear and imminent danger" is extremely high.
Even though the US and the rest of the Anglophone speak English, America jurisprudence is extremely distinct from the rest of the Anglophone (and vice versa), and IMO it doesn't make sense to compare one with the other due to these significant differences.
For example, the UK dealt with the Troubles into the late 1990s, and the US never had a similar insurgency since the 1950s in Puerto Rico, so there is a hardening in NatSec laws in the UK compared to the US.
This is why the US often leverages allied states to help with this kind of monitoring to sidestep some of the legal implications domestically.
That said, I agree with your point to a certain extent, the issue is the US and other Anglophone countries have a different relation with speech and civil liberties. It doesn't make sense to compare the US with the UK or EU and vice versa.
[0] - https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/free-speech-o...
American jurisprudence on speech leans towards Free Speech Absolutism [0] due to jurisprudence from the 1970s-2000s, and the test for "clear and imminent danger" is extremely high.
Even though the US and the rest of the Anglophone speak English, America jurisprudence is extremely distinct from the rest of the Anglophone (and vice versa), and IMO it doesn't make sense to compare one with the other due to these significant differences.
For example, the UK dealt with the Troubles into the late 1990s, and the US never had a similar insurgency since the 1950s in Puerto Rico, so there is a hardening in NatSec laws in the UK compared to the US.
This is why the US often leverages allied states to help with this kind of monitoring to sidestep some of the legal implications domestically.
That said, I agree with your point to a certain extent, the issue is the US and other Anglophone countries have a different relation with speech and civil liberties. It doesn't make sense to compare the US with the UK or EU and vice versa.
[0] - https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/free-speech-o...
How direct is direct enough? Connolley posted messages inciting racial violence, racial violence ensued.
Was Connolley a major instigator of these riots? No.
The judge's sentencing remarks are below, the key part being:
>6. When you published those words you were well aware of how volatile the situation was. As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties.
https://crimeline.co.uk/lucy-connolly-sentencing-remarks-17-...
Was Connolley a major instigator of these riots? No.
The judge's sentencing remarks are below, the key part being:
>6. When you published those words you were well aware of how volatile the situation was. As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties.
https://crimeline.co.uk/lucy-connolly-sentencing-remarks-17-...
Also noted in the article: it was posted in the days after the riot and in response to seeing people cleaing up and repairing the damage.
Connolley's message was posted at 8.30pm on the 29th July. One day before crowds attacked Mosques in Southport. Related disturbances continued until August 5th.
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
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
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.
The government will always be more interested in suppression of media and speech because that allows them to protect themselves.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested.
https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
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
> 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
Got it, standing and thinking
could be a criminal offense, depending on what you are thinking. Understood.
I don't think you've got a clear understanding of how PSPO orders work. Do you really think that standing and thinking would be a criminal offense? Maybe if you stood somewhere awkward (e.g. blocking the doors to an A&E department) and refused to move when asked, then I can understand it, but I think you're being disingenuous.
In the linked article, the criminal was not alleged to have obstructed anything. He did message the town council saying he was holding a silent vigil, which he had done before apparently without incident. This time he was arrested, PSPO was applied, and he was fined £9000.
If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
If his message to the council said he’d be standing there reading the newspaper, would the arrest and conviction have been made?
What are you on about?
The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.
The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest of some kind.
What if it was a regular newspaper, but secretly he was praying and not actually reading the paper. Is he a criminal?
The whole point of the PSPO is to protect the people who are considering using abortion services. If someone is "secretly" doing something, then it's not likely to be harassing others and so wouldn't be illegal under the terms of PSPO.
It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular incident would not have happened if the individual was praying somewhere else or not making a particular point about praying exactly where it would harass people using the clinic.
It's fine to have religious beliefs, but it's not fine to go around imposing those beliefs on others - that's how a lot of wars get started.
It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular incident would not have happened if the individual was praying somewhere else or not making a particular point about praying exactly where it would harass people using the clinic.
It's fine to have religious beliefs, but it's not fine to go around imposing those beliefs on others - that's how a lot of wars get started.
If I stand in a particular spot and do nothing, it’s OK. Now I do exactly the same thing, except beforehand I say I’ll be thinking a forbidden thought while doing it. My previously legal action is now illegal because I am imposing my religious beliefs on you. Am I understanding correctly?
I would imagine that he made the act of praying to be noticeable to others to act as a protest (e.g. typical head bowed and hands together). If he was simply standing there and minding his own business, then I can't see why there would have been any issue. The idea is that people should be allowed to make use of the health services without feeling undue pressure from others - it's typically a very difficult time for the people involved.
No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea?
Truth is a _defence_ against libel.
Truth is a _defence_ against libel.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Complaining about restricting speech in a paywalled article is beautiful irony.
hunglee2(1)
OutOfHere(1)
retox(1)
perching_aix(1)
ryandv(1)
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?
Does the editorial team of the Economist want to imply that only right-leaning members of the British public are experiencing this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
These claim that their views would be more widely accepted if it were not for restrictions on freedom of speech.
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.
> That has allowed the police to take a draconian approach to pro-Gaza protests
Generally pro-Gaza is more associated with left wing.
> 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.
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.
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.