6 ms·

The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll pr

The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

normie3000 6mo ago
Sounds interesting..Paywalled.
direwolf20 6mo ago
Can you give some examples of the speech the UK arrests people for?
- christkv 6mo ago
  https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/wales-england-germany-freedom-house-ministry-of-public-security-b2900316.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/wales-engl... You can get arrested for grossly offensive (completely subjective). Also they have a category called non-crime hate incidents (Hello Kafka) where they come to "intimidate" you without any charges being filed.
  - RansomStark 6mo ago
    That non crime hate incident goes on your criminal record and if you need an enhanced criminal records check, it will show up, and can be used to deny you employment. Its not just intimidation.
  - direwolf20 6mo ago
    You mean police acting is a non authoritative capacity to maintain public order?
- RansomStark 6mo ago
  there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence: "Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it". Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race. Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court has repeatedly affirmed to right to be offensive). Inciting violence (the offense she was convicted of) no, not at all, she was stating her political opinion and her belief that the lives of immigrants is worth less than british children. Although people will point out she admitted guilt, but the threat of significant pre-trail imprisonment was used a lot at this time to force guilty pleas.
  - roryirvine 6mo ago
    She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot. She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card". The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King-1.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con... This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".
    - RansomStark 6mo ago
      If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights. I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action. We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing. From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation: Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse." [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo
- mboto 6mo ago
  Lucy Connolly, used very poor speech in haste and deleted the tweet. Pressured to plead guilty: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce83pj1ggmeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce83pj1ggmeo Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine "Parents arrested for complaining about school in WhatsApp group": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-arrest-school-whatsapp-complained-cowley-hill-b2723751.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-arre... Chelsea Russell, "a 19-year-old woman from Liverpool, was sentenced to an eight-week community order, a curfew from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., and an electronic ankle tag after being found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message by posting rap lyrics on her Instagram account." The lyrics were in homage to her friend who had died and this was their favourite song. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... Jamie Michael, Royal Marine, expressing unhappiness with mass-immigration https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo Sam Melia, two years for distributing stickers saying “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue”: https://www.gbnews.com/news/sam-melia-free-speech-activists-outraged-jailed-far-right-stickers https://www.gbnews.com/news/sam-melia-free-speech-activists-... Some of these people might be saying unpalatable things, but criminalising them or arresting them is having a huge effect on free speech. Once we give these rights away, they can and will be used any other government that gets in power, and at some point there will be one you don't agree with. These rights are hard won, and easily lost.
- sickofparadox 6mo ago
  Here's an article from right after the original one that I posted giving 12 examples. https://web.archive.org/web/20250903165214/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/03/the-victims-of-britains-free-speech-crackdown/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250903165214/https://www.teleg... Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.
beardyw 6mo ago
The article says "The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network." Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.
Steve16384 6mo ago
You should read the whole article: "A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services." ".

normie3000 6mo ago

Sounds interesting..Paywalled.

direwolf20 6mo ago

Can you give some examples of the speech the UK arrests people for?

christkv 6mo ago
https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/wales-england-germany-freedom-house-ministry-of-public-security-b2900316.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/wales-engl... You can get arrested for grossly offensive (completely subjective). Also they have a category called non-crime hate incidents (Hello Kafka) where they come to "intimidate" you without any charges being filed.
- RansomStark 6mo ago
  That non crime hate incident goes on your criminal record and if you need an enhanced criminal records check, it will show up, and can be used to deny you employment. Its not just intimidation.
- direwolf20 6mo ago
  You mean police acting is a non authoritative capacity to maintain public order?
RansomStark 6mo ago
there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence: "Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it". Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race. Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court has repeatedly affirmed to right to be offensive). Inciting violence (the offense she was convicted of) no, not at all, she was stating her political opinion and her belief that the lives of immigrants is worth less than british children. Although people will point out she admitted guilt, but the threat of significant pre-trail imprisonment was used a lot at this time to force guilty pleas.
- roryirvine 6mo ago
  She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot. She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card". The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King-1.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con... This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".
  - RansomStark 6mo ago
    If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights. I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action. We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing. From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation: Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse." [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo
mboto 6mo ago
Lucy Connolly, used very poor speech in haste and deleted the tweet. Pressured to plead guilty: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce83pj1ggmeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce83pj1ggmeo Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine "Parents arrested for complaining about school in WhatsApp group": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-arrest-school-whatsapp-complained-cowley-hill-b2723751.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-arre... Chelsea Russell, "a 19-year-old woman from Liverpool, was sentenced to an eight-week community order, a curfew from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., and an electronic ankle tag after being found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message by posting rap lyrics on her Instagram account." The lyrics were in homage to her friend who had died and this was their favourite song. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... Jamie Michael, Royal Marine, expressing unhappiness with mass-immigration https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75zke1l7ylo Sam Melia, two years for distributing stickers saying “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue”: https://www.gbnews.com/news/sam-melia-free-speech-activists-outraged-jailed-far-right-stickers https://www.gbnews.com/news/sam-melia-free-speech-activists-... Some of these people might be saying unpalatable things, but criminalising them or arresting them is having a huge effect on free speech. Once we give these rights away, they can and will be used any other government that gets in power, and at some point there will be one you don't agree with. These rights are hard won, and easily lost.
sickofparadox 6mo ago
Here's an article from right after the original one that I posted giving 12 examples. https://web.archive.org/web/20250903165214/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/03/the-victims-of-britains-free-speech-crackdown/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250903165214/https://www.teleg... Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.

beardyw 6mo ago

The article says "The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network." Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.

Steve16384 6mo ago

You should read the whole article: "A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services." ".