zlacker

I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots.

There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie continuing to slander said immigrant for his own ends.

Another is Palestine Action being made a proscribed terror group. While lots of people, as evidenced by recent protests, see this as problematic, its not particularly different to other groups like environmental activists that commit criminal acts being proscribed and there are numerous examples UK/abroad of that. PA members at the direction of PA leadership have fallen into that category not because of their beliefs, but because of their actions – like breaking into Israeli-owned security research company with a van, and into an RAF base, in both cases committing vandalism and destruction of property.

Some people believe there is a problem, but there really isn't a legislative agenda against free speech.

>>nrawe+(OP)
Vandalism and destruction of property is a shockingly low bar. The suffragettes threw an axe at the king and no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

>>moomin+s
I'll stand to be wrong, but I believe in one case a member of staff and two police officers were also assaulted. Terrorism isn't necessarily about body count, it's about motivation. If the motive is political change, and the ends is violence/criminal damaged/anti-social behaviour that tends to be enough. Similar cases exist in the US, too.

I personally think its a bit of a stretch and will likely be undone. However, to pretend they are simply peaceful protests being unfairly targeted is also incorrect.

>>moomin+s
Breaking into a military base and attempting to damage military equipment used to defend the country is a very high bar.

>>moomin+s
> no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation

Is this true? I'd be surprised.

>>nrawe+(OP)
In one area at least, there is progress: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-rules-to-prot...

>>nrawe+(OP)
> its not particularly different to other groups like environmental activists that commit criminal acts being proscribed

I can't find any on [0] - do you have examples?

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

>>moomin+s
> no-one said they should be a proscribed organisation.

That wasn't a thing back then, not really

https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-453005/...

Arrested for "obstructing a policeman"

All of the suffragettes that were caught were normally caused with vandalism

>>nrawe+(OP)
>>some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots.

Yes, but only on the right. The leader of Hope not Hate was not charged for his inflammatory tweets, and then you have this guy saying he hoped right wing protestors' throats would be cut being completely let off:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/15/suspended-labour...

>>zimpen+T3
I should note that my comparison was to a US organisation proscribed as an eco-terror organisation, the name of which escapes me, and which I couldn't find in a quick scan back through my reading or here[0]. I came across them through a podcast interviewing both sides about a decade out. I'll keep looking though and try and qualify my source :)

I guess what I mean is this: while I think the PA proscription is probably misjudged, it's not without its precedent.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

>>moomin+s
If I broke into a US military base and started vandalizing B-52s, I honestly think I'd be pretty lucky to escape with my life.

>>nrawe+f2
Yeah the assault one is interesting cause they didn't end up charging them with it at all... perhaps reading the police statements without corroborating evidence is problematic.