But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make.
Not a great site but gives the gist:
https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
Whether or not the proscription was correct is irrelevant, the current law means that you commit the same offence showing support for IS or the Terrorgram Collective.
The police can’t simply ignore one proscribed group over another as that leads to all manner of weird and wacky outcomes.
Having a law that means merely expressing support of a group, leads to criminal charges is not something I think should be in place in any country that pretends to support freedom of speech.
The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
It's not like these guys are the Taliban or the IRA, though some of them did chuck some paint on some planes.
So a person who is worried about Starmer's authoritarian tendencies lay responsibility for the police action at the door of number 10.
This is categorically untrue.
Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended sentence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in the country after said prison sentence
An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
> a person is guilty of an offence if he—
> (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
> (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
My point is we were able to get through something like that, which was very serious, without needing to proscribe free speech in the way that's being done now for some people putting paint on planes.
So if we didn't need it for something that serious, we don't need it for this.
But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
"insulting words or behavior that cause distress to others"
Malicious Communications Act 1988 (Section 1):
"Outlaws sending messages, electronic or otherwise, with the intent to cause distress, or anxiety"
Communications Act 2003, Online Safety Act 2023, hate speech, terrorist legislation all made these many orders of magnitude worse in many ways.
Who is doing the proscribing?
/rhetorical
Care to name some?
The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet.
In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
All of the arrests mentioned in this thread in relation to these acts have been campaigns of intimidation, harassment and calls to violence, not simply saying something “insulting or offensive”.
In the UK political expression of free speech is protected by the ECHR, which overrides both those acts (look carefully who wishes to abolish the ECHR).
There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Dankula
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/glasgow-bin...
This is false. But even if it weren’t, it would be unjust. Determinations like “hate speech” are subjective, and have no place in law concerning speech. Without free speech, there is no democracy.
This is categorically untrue. Not only is the ECHR worded specifically to allow individual countries to curtail free speech ("any law, deemed by the local democratically elected government as ; necessary in a democratic society, and for a legitimate aim"), but parliament always had sovereignty to pass into law exemptions to the ECHR, which we have done on multiple occasions.
Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-57403049
[1]: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/pro-palestine-activists-dama...
We do not rely on the ECHR to protect our free speech. If we did the UK would no longer be a democracy. I'm offended by the suggestion that our democracy and society is so fragile that without them we would have no rights. Expect a police raid very soon.
The argument here is not the PA should be let off scot free. The argument is that proscribing them as an organisation is a massive and authoritarian overreaction to their actions.
> A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
> [F1(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,]
> [F1(b)causes such a message to be sent; or]
> (c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
The people mentioned here who were arrested due to violations of the communications acts are definitely the latter. The people arrested in peaceful protests for being associated with Palestine Action or Just Stop Oil are the former.
We're talking on the order of a few hundred arrests per year for section 127 of the Communications Act and 1500 per year for the Malicious Communications Act, which includes stuff like racial harassment, domestic abuse, pedophilic grooming, and a whole host of things that I would hope you agree should be illegal.
Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation.
There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy.
[0] >>44593022
It misleadingly describes the scale, coordination, and intent. It uses a minor detail to trivialize an act explicitly intended to reduce military capacity.
If we as a country are so at risk from paint chucking that we're resorting to proscription as our tool of defence, then we have some serious issues.