10 ms·

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

149 points by gorwell 1y ago

chairmansteve 1y ago
Britain has a problem. But so does America. Quite a few people (non citizens so far), have been arrested for criticising the actions of the current Israeli government.
- CommanderData 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Often the problems with free-speech in another country are used as a distraction from whatever is happening at home. In all directions.
- ARandomerDude 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - chairmansteve 1y ago
    Nope they are being jailed in the USA for weeks or months.
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C...
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large step in the wrong direction but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws of Britain and many european countries.
  - chairmansteve 1y ago
    The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      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.
      - burnt-resistor 1y ago
        [flagged]
        landl0rd 1y ago
        Right I already said he's the vice president. That's the job. We started with a system where the runner-up was VP and had a bit more of a role, then changed it to this.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    > but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      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.
- postepowanieadm 1y ago
  I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.
  - chairmansteve 1y ago
    True.
  - Gothmog69 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - techright75 1y ago
    No criminal actions whatsoever. A nation has a right to strike back when it is attacked by a foreign nation using any means it deems necessary for that type of attack to never happen again.
    - acquisitionsilk 1y ago
      [dead]
- dijit 1y ago
  [flagged]
- onetimeusename 1y ago
  The difference between the two free speech problems can be exemplified with the statements "Palestine is for the Palestinians" and "Britain is for the British". I suspect the political solution behind the two free speech problems is very different though.
- TacticalCoder 1y ago
  [dead]
- techright75 1y ago
  Nope. The only problem America has is that it let so many people in illegally for so many years. The fact is that almost none (probably none but Im sure there is some weird exception you'll try to spin) of the people criticizing Israel are being arrested - only the ones who break laws while tangentially criticizing American allies. The fact is, you can go to X and see millions of anti-Trump and anti-Israel posts. Im sure it's far worse on Bluecry. The only ones getting arrested are those who violently threaten, break into buildings, hold up traffic etc. I know that the resisters think are some kind of bad ass outlaws, but in reality they are a bunch of nobodies whom no one cares about and no law enforcement is visiting - because it is still very legal to criticize the president and his policies no matter what nonsense you make up.
mitchbob 1y ago
https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.c...
hunglee2 1y ago
[flagged]
- samarv 1y ago
  [dead]
userbinator 1y ago
If only Orwell was still alive to see this.
- genocidicbunny 1y ago
  The good news is we could probably stick some leads on either side of his grave and generate a decent amount of energy from how fast he's spinning in it.
- Nopoint2 1y ago
  He was the guy who started it all. He came up with this concept of "Judeo-Christian values", as the opposition to traditional values that he deemed fascist.
account-5 1y ago
Pretty sure the police aren't enacting the laws they are obligated to enforce, the government is the ones doing that.
- handedness 1y ago
  The article addresses that.
  - account-5 1y ago
    Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.
    - ChocolateGod 1y ago
      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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
      - account-5 1y ago
        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.
        ChocolateGod 1y ago
        JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
OgsyedIE 1y ago
It's strange that all four examples in the article are people with commonly objectionable right-wing views when the UK has sent arresting officers to people on the basis of online comments across the political spectrum in the last couple years. It isn't merely a partisan issue where a group that are easily written off as racists receive heavy-handed justice, the police have intermittently targeted every view away from the center in their homes, even Quakers, disability advocates and anti-hunting activists. Does the editorial team of the Economist want to imply that only right-leaning members of the British public are experiencing this?
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Examples like the raid on the quaker meeting are real and contemptible. I'm guessing it's because it's been weaponized against right-wingers for longer not because it's only been used against them. I hope people on the left, palestinian activists, etc. will help push back against these ridiculous tyrannical laws.
- adamors 1y ago
  It’s a wierdly written article, for one I wouldn’t take at face value anything coming from the current US admin, secondly, it keeps using British and European interchangebly, when the only examples are from the UK. It definitely tries to push a narrative.
- pcrh 1y ago
  Perhaps it's because the most powerful voices criticizing restrictions on speech in the UK are coming from the "right", e.g. Musk, Farage, Robinson, etc. These claim that their views would be more widely accepted if it were not for restrictions on freedom of speech.
- YetAnotherNick 1y ago
  The article mentions: > That has allowed the police to take a draconian approach to pro-Gaza protests Generally pro-Gaza is more associated with left wing.
- isaacremuant 1y ago
  No. But way to try and sidetrack it. They also used it against people opposing draconian covid policies or protesting for Assange and neither of those are partisan views, no matter how much some might want to pretend they are.
hathym 1y ago
I used to think I lived in a democracy, but the last couple of years pulled back the curtain revealing the true nature of western democracy
- croes 1y ago
  Fun fact, democracy doesn’t mean free society. People can vote for less freedom
  - jibe 1y ago
    When you vote away foundational freedoms, you are no longer a democracy, at least not a liberal democracy.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      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.
    - croes 1y ago
      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.
  - idle_zealot 1y ago
perching_aix 1y ago
[flagged]
- XCabbage 1y ago
  Two journalists criticised how their daughter's primary school handled her disabilities and were arrested for it, ostensibly on the grounds that their doing so was harassment and was grossly offensive, and you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary, and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague?
  - pcrh 1y ago
    Here's a BBC article on the case. Obviously 1) there was more to this than just a few posts on Whatsapp, and 2) the situation did get out of control for a brief while and the police were called. Probably similar to common "affray" or public disorder cases. >The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    I appreciate the hostile tone, very in vogue, but no, what I'm saying is that this... > THE POLICE arrived at Maxie Allen’s door at midday on January 29th. None of the six officers seemed to know much about why they were there, recalls Mr Allen. But they read out a list of charges and searched the house, before arresting him and his partner and taking them to the police station, where they were held for eight hours. The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school. ...is a lot more vague and less compelling than what you drew up here. Namely it doesn't mention: - that these people are journalists - that they were criticizing their daughter's primary school's handling of her disabilities - how exactly were they criticizing it and to what audience - any links to any of the court documents for people to inspect, to support these Am I supposed to conjure up these details from thin air or something? I'm not from the UK, this is not a story I was familiar with. Literally all the article had to say in the way of the arbitrariness and vagueness of this case was: > At one point during his questioning Mr Allen’s partner asked for an example of a WhatsApp message that constituted “malicious communication”. The detective had to stop and Google the crime. Which sounds crappy enough, but then this is pretty on par for cops to begin with in my impression, topic nonwithstanding. So yeah, not very compelling. > you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary, Correct, what was written in the article isn't particularly worrying at all, nor does it do a particularly good job of demonstrating the arbitrariness. That's exactly what I said. > and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague? Law is written in natural language, imposing rules over things in the natural world. It will never not be vague, and it cannot in good conscience afford to not be vague either. It could be specific in some ways I'm sure, at the cost of effectiveness as usual, but the article doesn't exactly support or detail this idea much, by virtue of not saying anything more specific. Which is what I was talking about.
zugi 1y ago
> The public might well question why so much time is spent on this, while burglaries routinely go unsolved. I'd offer yet another explanation: laziness. For burglaries, you have to get out of your chair, go out into the community, interview witnesses, search for evidence, and maybe wander into dangerous areas to find and arrest potentially violent suspects. For internet thought crimes, you can sit in the comfort of your own chair, getting paid to surf the internet, and declare enough posts "offensive" to look productive. When you do show up to arrest someone, they're highly unlikely to be violent. It's a lot easier and safer than investigating burglaries.
- neanda 1y ago
  this is very important context
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  The other side of that coin is that burglaries are limited in that the criminals have to physically be present to commit the crime and that puts a hard limit on the number of victims. Posting incitements to commit violence on the internet is not inherently limited and can easily provoke riots based on complete falsehoods. There's also the much more dangerous issue of destroying democracy by misleading a large number of voters.
  - zugi 1y ago
    Misleading voters is what democracy is all about! But more seriously, society has dealt with misinformation and disinformation for millenia and collectively decided that freedom of speech and the press were key factors in keeping democracy, and were a more vital concern than the threat of misinformation. To me, government deciding what is or isn't misinformation is a step away from democracy and towards tyranny. But I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the fine lines of freedom of speech.
throwaway77385 1y ago
Whatsapp messages? It's pretty crucial to find out how these ended up with the police. Did these people send Whatsapp messages to someone who didn't like the messages and this person then went to the police? In that case, it's back to the article and lack of definition within these laws. If, however, the police got the whatsapp messages via some kind of mass-surveillance programme, then we have a big problem...
- account-5 1y ago
  WhatsApp claims to be end to end encrypted, if the police could crack that encryption we'd all be in trouble, and meta employees extremely bad at their jobs! Most likely your first guess is correct. Encryption means nothing when you have one of the unencrypted ends of the pipe.
- justsomehnguy 1y ago
  It's always amusing to hear the proponents of E2E who are completely ignore xkcd/538
- skippyboxedhero 1y ago
  All of the cases that I have seen have been group chats. The Act in question is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicious_communications 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.
OutOfHere 1y ago
[flagged]
- landl0rd 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    The British police don't look to discriminate in their application of the law. If the British-right feel more entitled to free speech, then they will naturally perceive the brunt of the law directed at them.
    - landl0rd 1y ago
      It reads as legitimately insane that someone is saying in a critical way someone "feels more entitled to free speech" as a justification. I think this is just a basic values disagreement and wouldn't care to live in a country where people who don't believe in that freedom can vote or hold political weight.
      - OutOfHere 1y ago
        Oh it is not a justification, just the logical explanation of what was suggested with regard to the British-right potentially being targeted. I don't even feel that anyone in particular is being targeted.
kennywinker 1y ago
[flagged]
pcrh 1y ago
The comparison is made with America's First Amendment, which is a valuable piece of legislation. How does the law in the US treat incitement to violence, as shown by some of the cases described, e.g. Among them were people who said things like “blow the mosque up” and “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. That probably would have been legal in America, says Gavin Phillipson of Bristol University, since it falls short of presenting a clear and imminent danger. What would constitute "clear and imminent danger" in a online posting?
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Context helps. The tweets appeared during an attempt to set off race riots in the UK, which was partly being organised on Twitter. And some people had indeed tried to set fire to hotels. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/12/rotherham-rioter-levi-fishlock-who-tried-to-burn-down-asylum-seeker-hotel-jailed-for-nine-years 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.
- skippyboxedhero 1y ago
  The person in question did not say the latter. You have, presumably deliberately, decontextualized it. She said roughly what you said followed by "for all I care", and she also deleted the post a few minutes after. (What some people may not understand: UK police are running a dragnet online now, it is unclear when this started but was in full force after Covid, you can post and immediately delete, you can post with five followers...they will find it, and will attempt to prosecute. People on here go mad when police in the US pick up drug addicts, the UK has a China-style operation aimed at the public, they are making 200-300 arrests a week, it is complete insanity). Now compare this to what else people are seeing. Some people in the UK (I cannot say which ones) are subject to rules: benefit fraud, tax evasion, public disturbances everywhere..."community policing" so these laws are not enforced. A well-known paedophile politician was recently convicted for attempted rape and sexual assault, they got a sentence shorter than the person you are referring to above...a convicted paedophile. Some parts of the UK have given prosecutors guidelines not to give a custodial sentence to paedophiles. During the riots, whilst people were being arrested for tweeting, there was a video online of a policeman asking attendees of a local mosque to put their weapons back in the mosque...no arrests made. For people in the UK, the problem is not the danger of things being said online, the danger is things going on in the physical world around them. I don't think a reasonable person can fail to connect these two things, there is a reason why the police go after the innocent online rather than criminals.
ryandv 1y ago
[flagged]
- cwmoore 1y ago
  Goodbad?
kazinator 1y ago
> The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school. Well, what is the content of those e-mails? Dear The Economist, your story is not worth the paper it isn't printed on without the goddamned specifics. The content of those communications could well be reasonably actionable by police. Of course, those who were paid a visit by police will claim that they made nothing but some disparaging remarks. It is an extraordinary claim that a school called the police over mere disparaging remarks, and that the police subsequently arrested someone on specific charges. Extraordinary claims require backing evidence. A BBC story says that: "Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property." It's possible that the school simply distorted the facts to bring about an arrest, dragging the police into it. That same county's own PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) made these decent statements: "There has clearly been a fundamental breakdown in relationships between a school and parents that shouldn't have become a police matter." and "While people should be courteous and go through the proper channels when raising concerns about a public service, the public should be able to express their views without worrying they'll get a knock at the door from the police." So The Economist simply made up this stuff about someone arrested over "disparaging remarks". There were allegations of harrassment and causing a nuisance. Maybe the police went a bit overboard, but they can't just ignore such allegations either. That's why the prank known as swatting works. > Another man criticised pro-Palestine protesters, tweeting: “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals. That sounds like a legitimate target for investigation by police; it can be reasonably interpreted as a threat to carry out some action. If that individual did storm Heathrow and cause a violent incident, and it came to light that the police had known about his plan from an online posting, they would face heat. Nothing here but rage clickbait.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  I read that last example as saying that the pro-Palestinian protesters are one step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals, not that the person making the statement was. I mean, maybe it's worth a look anyway, but not directly for the reason you stated. The rest of your post I agree with.
LatteLazy 1y ago
I feel like this article makes a very poor argument for what should be an easy win. I think the uk needs much more freedom of speech, both at a legal level and culturally (I am a Brit) But the articles arguments are weak: Someone calling for violent disorder during a riot probably should face prosecution. The fact the US constitution might protect such speech is irrelevant. Similarly you can make a good argument that incitement of racial (religious etc) hatred should not be protected either. If you want to critique Islam or Israel go for it. But calling all Muslims or Jews or all women or gays or whatever other group names is likely to cause arguments and disturb the peace. The article also focuses way too much on the USAs approach. This seems to me to have failed: on one hand the us is knee deep in conspiracy theories and far right rhetoric, and on the other people self censor endlessly (or face the consequences on an arbitrary and capricious basis). If you’re going to argue for free speech, do it based on the inherent dangers of letting any one group decide what is banned, do it on the necessity of having clear quick communication of social changes and do it on the basis of the fastest correction of error. Not “because someone wrote down congress shall pass no law” and then a long list of judge’s arbitrarily decided what that did or didn’t protect over the next 200 years.
KaiserPro 1y ago
The article is out by a factor of 10, from the data I can find its 900 arrests in 2 years. The problem is that this act is also the way to prosecute death threats. In the UK its generally frowned on to send threats of violence. Given that we also have a much lower homicide rate, I'd say thats a fair exchange. even if the act causes aberrations. The article would be more convincing if it talked about the pub order act 2023, which allows the police to do this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro But as thats protest law, it appears that it doesn't count as free speech. Now the bits that are concerning are that the courts system is so underfunded that there is no legal support for defendants. Proper representation would help eliminate a large number of the stupid and frivolous cases. This is why legal aid needs to be for everyone. ITs not down to funding to determine guilt, its the courts. The point about magistrates being untrained is bollocks. They are "lay" for a reason. Thats the bedrock of common law.
- chrismcb 1y ago
  So you think you have a lower homicide rate because you can procedure death threats? Is there really a correlation? That is how often did someone follow-up on a death threat? And how much does arresting people who threaten, reduce homicide? It is illegal to send death threats in the US as well
cobbzilla 1y ago
The thing that boggles my mind most is the UK libel laws where stating a true, verifiable fact can be illegal if it makes the subject look bad. Someone tell me I’ve got that wrong.
- mig39 1y ago
  No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea? Truth is a _defence_ against libel.
  - cobbzilla 1y ago
    I did have it technically wrong but practically correct. Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- anonymousiam 1y ago
  In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested. https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-criminal-charges-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo
isaacremuant 1y ago
Policing social media and citizens that are not a threat is easy. Policing actual crimes like sexual abuse rings, violent crime, vandalism, corporate crime, transit crime, gang ilegal proceedings, etc is harder so it generally won't happen. The government will always be more interested in suppression of media and speech because that allows them to protect themselves.
_zagj 1y ago
On the plus side, the UK must be doing pretty well economically if they can afford to waste police and prosecutorial resources on people saying mean things on the internet.
retox 1y ago
[flagged]
- alephnerd 1y ago
  @Dang is it possible to flag this user? The statement above is an antisemetic dog whistle originating from 4chan.
ValveFan6969 1y ago
Complaining about restricting speech in a paywalled article is beautiful irony.
librasteve 1y ago
i suppose that the nasty surprise for Lucy Connelly was to post something (totally disgraceful) to a public forum that she would perhaps say to a small circle of friends and then find that it is considered to have a substantive influence on real rioters actually ready to set light to hotels with real people in them … even now I post stuff by way of semi private thoughts here and I do not fully appreciate the extent to and rapidity with which they will be shared … this is not to condone Lucy, but to wonder if she really did mean those vile things in practice or whether it was a very misguided emotional vent … should there be another level of proof of intent required in relation to social media … for sure her sentence is justified if she said those same words through a megaphone in front of the rioters ready to storm the hotel gates i honestly don’t know - making people think twice about what they post is a social good and maybe we should keep the law simple and let the courts drive through this new harsh application

149 points by gorwell 1y ago

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

CommanderData 1y ago
[flagged]
Terr_ 1y ago
Often the problems with free-speech in another country are used as a distraction from whatever is happening at home. In all directions.
ARandomerDude 1y ago
[flagged]
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  Nope they are being jailed in the USA for weeks or months.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C...
landl0rd 1y ago
Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large step in the wrong direction but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws of Britain and many european countries.
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    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.
    - burnt-resistor 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - landl0rd 1y ago
        Right I already said he's the vice president. That's the job. We started with a system where the runner-up was VP and had a bit more of a role, then changed it to this.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    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.
postepowanieadm 1y ago
I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.
- chairmansteve 1y ago
  True.
- Gothmog69 1y ago
  [flagged]
- techright75 1y ago
  No criminal actions whatsoever. A nation has a right to strike back when it is attacked by a foreign nation using any means it deems necessary for that type of attack to never happen again.
  - acquisitionsilk 1y ago
    [dead]
dijit 1y ago
[flagged]
onetimeusename 1y ago
The difference between the two free speech problems can be exemplified with the statements "Palestine is for the Palestinians" and "Britain is for the British". I suspect the political solution behind the two free speech problems is very different though.
TacticalCoder 1y ago
[dead]
techright75 1y ago
Nope. The only problem America has is that it let so many people in illegally for so many years. The fact is that almost none (probably none but Im sure there is some weird exception you'll try to spin) of the people criticizing Israel are being arrested - only the ones who break laws while tangentially criticizing American allies. The fact is, you can go to X and see millions of anti-Trump and anti-Israel posts. Im sure it's far worse on Bluecry. The only ones getting arrested are those who violently threaten, break into buildings, hold up traffic etc. I know that the resisters think are some kind of bad ass outlaws, but in reality they are a bunch of nobodies whom no one cares about and no law enforcement is visiting - because it is still very legal to criticize the president and his policies no matter what nonsense you make up.

mitchbob 1y ago

https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways https://archive.ph/2025.05.21-164547/https://www.economist.c...

hunglee2 1y ago

[flagged]

samarv 1y ago
[dead]

userbinator 1y ago

If only Orwell was still alive to see this.

genocidicbunny 1y ago
The good news is we could probably stick some leads on either side of his grave and generate a decent amount of energy from how fast he's spinning in it.
Nopoint2 1y ago
He was the guy who started it all. He came up with this concept of "Judeo-Christian values", as the opposition to traditional values that he deemed fascist.

account-5 1y ago

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

handedness 1y ago
The article addresses that.
- account-5 1y ago
  Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.
  - ChocolateGod 1y ago
    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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.
    - account-5 1y ago
      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.
      - ChocolateGod 1y ago
        JK Rowling can afford a good lawyer.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

OgsyedIE 1y ago

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

landl0rd 1y ago
Examples like the raid on the quaker meeting are real and contemptible. I'm guessing it's because it's been weaponized against right-wingers for longer not because it's only been used against them. I hope people on the left, palestinian activists, etc. will help push back against these ridiculous tyrannical laws.
adamors 1y ago
It’s a wierdly written article, for one I wouldn’t take at face value anything coming from the current US admin, secondly, it keeps using British and European interchangebly, when the only examples are from the UK. It definitely tries to push a narrative.
pcrh 1y ago
Perhaps it's because the most powerful voices criticizing restrictions on speech in the UK are coming from the "right", e.g. Musk, Farage, Robinson, etc. These claim that their views would be more widely accepted if it were not for restrictions on freedom of speech.
YetAnotherNick 1y ago
The article mentions: > That has allowed the police to take a draconian approach to pro-Gaza protests Generally pro-Gaza is more associated with left wing.
isaacremuant 1y ago
No. But way to try and sidetrack it. They also used it against people opposing draconian covid policies or protesting for Assange and neither of those are partisan views, no matter how much some might want to pretend they are.

hathym 1y ago

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

croes 1y ago
Fun fact, democracy doesn’t mean free society. People can vote for less freedom
- jibe 1y ago
  When you vote away foundational freedoms, you are no longer a democracy, at least not a liberal democracy.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    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.
  - croes 1y ago
    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.
- idle_zealot 1y ago

perching_aix 1y ago

[flagged]

XCabbage 1y ago
Two journalists criticised how their daughter's primary school handled her disabilities and were arrested for it, ostensibly on the grounds that their doing so was harassment and was grossly offensive, and you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary, and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague?
- pcrh 1y ago
  Here's a BBC article on the case. Obviously 1) there was more to this than just a few posts on Whatsapp, and 2) the situation did get out of control for a brief while and the police were called. Probably similar to common "affray" or public disorder cases. >The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
- perching_aix 1y ago
  I appreciate the hostile tone, very in vogue, but no, what I'm saying is that this... > THE POLICE arrived at Maxie Allen’s door at midday on January 29th. None of the six officers seemed to know much about why they were there, recalls Mr Allen. But they read out a list of charges and searched the house, before arresting him and his partner and taking them to the police station, where they were held for eight hours. The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school. ...is a lot more vague and less compelling than what you drew up here. Namely it doesn't mention: - that these people are journalists - that they were criticizing their daughter's primary school's handling of her disabilities - how exactly were they criticizing it and to what audience - any links to any of the court documents for people to inspect, to support these Am I supposed to conjure up these details from thin air or something? I'm not from the UK, this is not a story I was familiar with. Literally all the article had to say in the way of the arbitrariness and vagueness of this case was: > At one point during his questioning Mr Allen’s partner asked for an example of a WhatsApp message that constituted “malicious communication”. The detective had to stop and Google the crime. Which sounds crappy enough, but then this is pretty on par for cops to begin with in my impression, topic nonwithstanding. So yeah, not very compelling. > you think this isn't worrying, isn't arbitrary, Correct, what was written in the article isn't particularly worrying at all, nor does it do a particularly good job of demonstrating the arbitrariness. That's exactly what I said. > and doesn't hint that the standards set out in those laws are vague? Law is written in natural language, imposing rules over things in the natural world. It will never not be vague, and it cannot in good conscience afford to not be vague either. It could be specific in some ways I'm sure, at the cost of effectiveness as usual, but the article doesn't exactly support or detail this idea much, by virtue of not saying anything more specific. Which is what I was talking about.

zugi 1y ago

> The public might well question why so much time is spent on this, while burglaries routinely go unsolved. I'd offer yet another explanation: laziness. For burglaries, you have to get out of your chair, go out into the community, interview witnesses, search for evidence, and maybe wander into dangerous areas to find and arrest potentially violent suspects. For internet thought crimes, you can sit in the comfort of your own chair, getting paid to surf the internet, and declare enough posts "offensive" to look productive. When you do show up to arrest someone, they're highly unlikely to be violent. It's a lot easier and safer than investigating burglaries.

neanda 1y ago
this is very important context
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
The other side of that coin is that burglaries are limited in that the criminals have to physically be present to commit the crime and that puts a hard limit on the number of victims. Posting incitements to commit violence on the internet is not inherently limited and can easily provoke riots based on complete falsehoods. There's also the much more dangerous issue of destroying democracy by misleading a large number of voters.
- zugi 1y ago
  Misleading voters is what democracy is all about! But more seriously, society has dealt with misinformation and disinformation for millenia and collectively decided that freedom of speech and the press were key factors in keeping democracy, and were a more vital concern than the threat of misinformation. To me, government deciding what is or isn't misinformation is a step away from democracy and towards tyranny. But I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the fine lines of freedom of speech.

throwaway77385 1y ago

Whatsapp messages? It's pretty crucial to find out how these ended up with the police. Did these people send Whatsapp messages to someone who didn't like the messages and this person then went to the police? In that case, it's back to the article and lack of definition within these laws. If, however, the police got the whatsapp messages via some kind of mass-surveillance programme, then we have a big problem...

account-5 1y ago
WhatsApp claims to be end to end encrypted, if the police could crack that encryption we'd all be in trouble, and meta employees extremely bad at their jobs! Most likely your first guess is correct. Encryption means nothing when you have one of the unencrypted ends of the pipe.
justsomehnguy 1y ago
It's always amusing to hear the proponents of E2E who are completely ignore xkcd/538
skippyboxedhero 1y ago
All of the cases that I have seen have been group chats. The Act in question is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicious_communications 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.

OutOfHere 1y ago

[flagged]

landl0rd 1y ago
[flagged]
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  The British police don't look to discriminate in their application of the law. If the British-right feel more entitled to free speech, then they will naturally perceive the brunt of the law directed at them.
  - landl0rd 1y ago
    It reads as legitimately insane that someone is saying in a critical way someone "feels more entitled to free speech" as a justification. I think this is just a basic values disagreement and wouldn't care to live in a country where people who don't believe in that freedom can vote or hold political weight.
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      Oh it is not a justification, just the logical explanation of what was suggested with regard to the British-right potentially being targeted. I don't even feel that anyone in particular is being targeted.

kennywinker 1y ago

[flagged]

pcrh 1y ago

The comparison is made with America's First Amendment, which is a valuable piece of legislation. How does the law in the US treat incitement to violence, as shown by some of the cases described, e.g. Among them were people who said things like “blow the mosque up” and “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. That probably would have been legal in America, says Gavin Phillipson of Bristol University, since it falls short of presenting a clear and imminent danger. What would constitute "clear and imminent danger" in a online posting?

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
Context helps. The tweets appeared during an attempt to set off race riots in the UK, which was partly being organised on Twitter. And some people had indeed tried to set fire to hotels. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/12/rotherham-rioter-levi-fishlock-who-tried-to-burn-down-asylum-seeker-hotel-jailed-for-nine-years 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.
skippyboxedhero 1y ago
The person in question did not say the latter. You have, presumably deliberately, decontextualized it. She said roughly what you said followed by "for all I care", and she also deleted the post a few minutes after. (What some people may not understand: UK police are running a dragnet online now, it is unclear when this started but was in full force after Covid, you can post and immediately delete, you can post with five followers...they will find it, and will attempt to prosecute. People on here go mad when police in the US pick up drug addicts, the UK has a China-style operation aimed at the public, they are making 200-300 arrests a week, it is complete insanity). Now compare this to what else people are seeing. Some people in the UK (I cannot say which ones) are subject to rules: benefit fraud, tax evasion, public disturbances everywhere..."community policing" so these laws are not enforced. A well-known paedophile politician was recently convicted for attempted rape and sexual assault, they got a sentence shorter than the person you are referring to above...a convicted paedophile. Some parts of the UK have given prosecutors guidelines not to give a custodial sentence to paedophiles. During the riots, whilst people were being arrested for tweeting, there was a video online of a policeman asking attendees of a local mosque to put their weapons back in the mosque...no arrests made. For people in the UK, the problem is not the danger of things being said online, the danger is things going on in the physical world around them. I don't think a reasonable person can fail to connect these two things, there is a reason why the police go after the innocent online rather than criminals.

ryandv 1y ago

[flagged]

cwmoore 1y ago
Goodbad?

kazinator 1y ago

> The couple’s alleged crime? Disparaging emails and WhatsApp messages about their daughter’s primary school. Well, what is the content of those e-mails? Dear The Economist, your story is not worth the paper it isn't printed on without the goddamned specifics. The content of those communications could well be reasonably actionable by police. Of course, those who were paid a visit by police will claim that they made nothing but some disparaging remarks. It is an extraordinary claim that a school called the police over mere disparaging remarks, and that the police subsequently arrested someone on specific charges. Extraordinary claims require backing evidence. A BBC story says that: "Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property." It's possible that the school simply distorted the facts to bring about an arrest, dragging the police into it. That same county's own PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) made these decent statements: "There has clearly been a fundamental breakdown in relationships between a school and parents that shouldn't have become a police matter." and "While people should be courteous and go through the proper channels when raising concerns about a public service, the public should be able to express their views without worrying they'll get a knock at the door from the police." So The Economist simply made up this stuff about someone arrested over "disparaging remarks". There were allegations of harrassment and causing a nuisance. Maybe the police went a bit overboard, but they can't just ignore such allegations either. That's why the prank known as swatting works. > Another man criticised pro-Palestine protesters, tweeting: “One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals. That sounds like a legitimate target for investigation by police; it can be reasonably interpreted as a threat to carry out some action. If that individual did storm Heathrow and cause a violent incident, and it came to light that the police had known about his plan from an online posting, they would face heat. Nothing here but rage clickbait.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
I read that last example as saying that the pro-Palestinian protesters are one step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals, not that the person making the statement was. I mean, maybe it's worth a look anyway, but not directly for the reason you stated. The rest of your post I agree with.

LatteLazy 1y ago

I feel like this article makes a very poor argument for what should be an easy win. I think the uk needs much more freedom of speech, both at a legal level and culturally (I am a Brit) But the articles arguments are weak: Someone calling for violent disorder during a riot probably should face prosecution. The fact the US constitution might protect such speech is irrelevant. Similarly you can make a good argument that incitement of racial (religious etc) hatred should not be protected either. If you want to critique Islam or Israel go for it. But calling all Muslims or Jews or all women or gays or whatever other group names is likely to cause arguments and disturb the peace. The article also focuses way too much on the USAs approach. This seems to me to have failed: on one hand the us is knee deep in conspiracy theories and far right rhetoric, and on the other people self censor endlessly (or face the consequences on an arbitrary and capricious basis). If you’re going to argue for free speech, do it based on the inherent dangers of letting any one group decide what is banned, do it on the necessity of having clear quick communication of social changes and do it on the basis of the fastest correction of error. Not “because someone wrote down congress shall pass no law” and then a long list of judge’s arbitrarily decided what that did or didn’t protect over the next 200 years.

KaiserPro 1y ago

The article is out by a factor of 10, from the data I can find its 900 arrests in 2 years. The problem is that this act is also the way to prosecute death threats. In the UK its generally frowned on to send threats of violence. Given that we also have a much lower homicide rate, I'd say thats a fair exchange. even if the act causes aberrations. The article would be more convincing if it talked about the pub order act 2023, which allows the police to do this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3x5j6g30ro But as thats protest law, it appears that it doesn't count as free speech. Now the bits that are concerning are that the courts system is so underfunded that there is no legal support for defendants. Proper representation would help eliminate a large number of the stupid and frivolous cases. This is why legal aid needs to be for everyone. ITs not down to funding to determine guilt, its the courts. The point about magistrates being untrained is bollocks. They are "lay" for a reason. Thats the bedrock of common law.

chrismcb 1y ago
So you think you have a lower homicide rate because you can procedure death threats? Is there really a correlation? That is how often did someone follow-up on a death threat? And how much does arresting people who threaten, reduce homicide? It is illegal to send death threats in the US as well

cobbzilla 1y ago

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

mig39 1y ago
No, this is incorrect, and a quick google search would verify that. Where did you get that idea? Truth is a _defence_ against libel.
- cobbzilla 1y ago
  I did have it technically wrong but practically correct. Do go have a quick conversation with your favorite AI about this. Ask if anyone in the UK has ever been punished for saying a true thing, and whether the cost on the defendant to prove innocence is not so exorbitant as to allow libel to be weaponized by the wealthy against their critics.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Who decides which facts and truth are "correct"? The same arbiters of what is and isn't "antisemitic" is who simply because speech criticizes IDF or Likud propaganda and/or genocide.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
anonymousiam 1y ago
In the UK, you don't even need to speak to be arrested. https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-criminal-charges-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-clinic/ https://reason.com/2024/10/17/british-man-convicted-of-crimi...
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  That was in a specifically protected area covered by a PSPO that explicitly banned prayer. He then refused to move on, so this was a deliberate protest against abortion. > On the day, he was asked to leave the area by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes - but he refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

isaacremuant 1y ago

Policing social media and citizens that are not a threat is easy. Policing actual crimes like sexual abuse rings, violent crime, vandalism, corporate crime, transit crime, gang ilegal proceedings, etc is harder so it generally won't happen. The government will always be more interested in suppression of media and speech because that allows them to protect themselves.

_zagj 1y ago

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

retox 1y ago

[flagged]

alephnerd 1y ago
@Dang is it possible to flag this user? The statement above is an antisemetic dog whistle originating from 4chan.

ValveFan6969 1y ago

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

librasteve 1y ago

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