zlacker

[parent] [thread] 27 comments
1. ap99+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-15 09:45:03
For the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id.

But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.

replies(7): >>JFingl+R >>toyg+J2 >>_joel+X4 >>matthe+r5 >>esskay+56 >>Kaiser+4c >>liveon+lh
2. JFingl+R[view] [source] 2025-08-15 09:53:49
>>ap99+(OP)
Here is more information about the arrests that are currently taking place:

https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...

replies(1): >>jphowa+n7
3. toyg+J2[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:13:28
>>ap99+(OP)
Britain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.
replies(2): >>polsha+q7 >>vidarh+lj
4. _joel+X4[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:35:21
>>ap99+(OP)
Please cite examples of someone being jailed for offending someone (that doesn't include incitement to violence).
replies(1): >>liveon+3h
5. matthe+r5[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:39:21
>>ap99+(OP)
I'm sure you realise this, but you are of course massively and deliberately oversimplifying to the point of being misleading.

Like… it's okay to complain about bad legislation without misrepresenting it. It's bad enough that you don't need to make shit up about it.

6. esskay+56[view] [source] 2025-08-15 10:44:50
>>ap99+(OP)
> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.

It's hard to take this seriously, especially when if I ask for citations it'll likely be a couple of extremely obscure cases where the details are being conveniently glossed over.

replies(4): >>abtinf+m9 >>gadder+Nc >>liveon+1f >>liveon+Ug
◧◩
7. jphowa+n7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 10:58:30
>>JFingl+R
Why does that link say the current director of public prosecutions is Sir Kier Starmer? It's hard to take it seriously.
replies(1): >>jjbinx+X7
◧◩
8. polsha+q7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 10:59:17
>>toyg+J2
So there is not a magical space where the law does not apply? that is what you call hypocritical.
replies(1): >>toyg+wj
◧◩◪
9. jjbinx+X7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:04:54
>>jphowa+n7
It doesn't say he's currently the DPP. It says:

"As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued..."

Past tense.

◧◩
10. abtinf+m9[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:19:26
>>esskay+56
Wikipedia literally has an extended section on this issue. No one is going to give you citations for something trivially googlable.

> In September 2022, a British woman was arrested and charged for holding up an "abolish monarchy" sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh. Similar arrests throughout the country around this period over anti-monarchy republican sentiment have alarmed human rights groups.

replies(1): >>crtasm+le
11. Kaiser+4c[view] [source] 2025-08-15 11:38:28
>>ap99+(OP)
> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.

actually no. its grossly offensive. Not someone finding it offense. And normally its a legal garnish, for something like trying to get someone else killed or injured via text.

However you can be arrested for organising a protest that someone might reasonably find annoying. That has much less legal oversight.

◧◩
12. gadder+Nc[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:44:10
>>esskay+56
You can get arrested for offending people in Whatsapp group chats: https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti...
◧◩◪
13. crtasm+le[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:54:56
>>abtinf+m9
That's bad, but it is not an example of someone going to jail.
◧◩
14. liveon+1f[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 11:59:37
>>esskay+56
30 arrests per day and increasing

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...

replies(1): >>esskay+Wp
◧◩
15. liveon+Ug[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 12:12:49
>>esskay+56
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-o...
replies(1): >>esskay+Cq
◧◩
16. liveon+3h[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 12:14:01
>>_joel+X4
Held for eight hours + other abuse: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-o...
replies(1): >>_joel+0r7
17. liveon+lh[view] [source] 2025-08-15 12:15:52
>>ap99+(OP)
All sides of all governments desperately want to install every oppressive thought-policing and free-speech limiting technology possible. They lust after China's "social credit score" and will do anything to control you.
◧◩
18. vidarh+lj[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 12:31:44
>>toyg+J2
Speaker's Corner has never been a place "were police will tolerate any sort of speech". It's a place where anyone can speak.

You're still subjected to exactly the same legal restrictions on the speech itself as anywhere else in public, and that's nothing new.

replies(1): >>toyg+lp
◧◩◪
19. toyg+wj[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 12:32:33
>>polsha+q7
The hypocrisy is in touting that there is such a space, in order to gain points for freedom in international relations, then conveniently discard the pretense whenever it suits the authority.
◧◩◪
20. toyg+lp[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 13:05:48
>>vidarh+lj
It's not new, no - the position has been the same since at least the XIX century, when Britain gave asylum to European insurrectionalists. But it's always been fundamentally hypocritical: being "free" to complete a sentence before you go to prison is not meaningfully different from getting interrupted before you go to prison.
replies(1): >>vidarh+ht
◧◩◪
21. esskay+Wp[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 13:09:23
>>liveon+1f
Arrests != Jail. Read the original comment.
replies(2): >>lcnPyl+wv >>abtinf+PK7
◧◩◪
22. esskay+Cq[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 13:13:30
>>liveon+Ug
And theres the "obscure cases where the details are being conveniently glossed over" part. How long has he been sentence to jail for again?

I'm not defending his arrest, and quite obviously something went very wrong there, but again, we're talking about jail here. Posting an obscure cockup as if its the norm is pretty disingenuous.

replies(1): >>liveon+EI
◧◩◪◨
23. vidarh+ht[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 13:28:18
>>toyg+lp
I wish it wasn't like that, but the position isn't hypocritical:

You're free to complete saying something unlawful because until you've said something unlawful you haven't committed a crime, but furthermore, English law on what is "unlawful" to say or do is also complicated in that many things are okay to say or do in contexts where they will not cause offence but becomes illegal if done in front of the "wrong" people or with the "wrong" intent.

As such, until there has been a complaint there often will not be a basis for saying that something was unlawful to say unless it is really far over the line.

If you were to start shouting something blatantly illegal such as chanting support for a proscribed organisation, you must certainly would not find police standing there and waiting unless they deemed it likely to be more disruptive to peace and order to stop you right away.

This expends past speech - e.g. public nudity is in the same category that isn't illegal in itself but where intent or the effect on others can make it unlawful - and this notion on relying on intent and whether or not someone present took offense rather than clearly delineating where the boundary is, is a challenge with English law because of the huge gray areas it creates.

[used "English law" as shorthand here - really it is the law of England & Wales, and much of it will be the same in Scotland, but Scotland does have a separate legal system, hence why it isn't "UK law"]

◧◩◪◨
24. lcnPyl+wv[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 13:41:40
>>esskay+Wp
Right, taken literally it isn't wrong. They said "can be arrested and jailed". They were arrested and they would have been jailed too if they didn't go to court and defend themselves. How does that not meet the bar of "can be arrested and jailed"?
◧◩◪◨
25. liveon+EI[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 14:48:59
>>esskay+Cq
keep moving those goal posts to justify your denial
replies(1): >>esskay+hU
◧◩◪◨⬒
26. esskay+hU[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-15 15:48:44
>>liveon+EI
How can there be denial for something you cant actually demonstrate is anything more than a fringe issue?
◧◩◪
27. _joel+0r7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-18 09:58:06
>>liveon+3h
So, not jailed then. No more examples of people actually been sent to prison?
◧◩◪◨
28. abtinf+PK7[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-08-18 13:05:49
>>esskay+Wp
Of course arrests = jail.

What do you think happens when you are arrested? You are taken to jail. At least for a few hours, or overnight, or even several days depending on the court schedule. And then there are the mountain of legal fees and dread of your fate hanging in the balance.

Sure, it’s not necessarily long term incarceration, but it’s enough to scare most reasonable people into submission.

[go to top]