Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/cr...k#Echobox=1743833397

UK

Friday April 4, 2025, 9:20pm BST, The Times

"Civil liberties groups say that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using vague laws"

"The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.

Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.

Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I found interesting, is the number of arrests reported seems to have dropped for the first time in a decade.

I have to wonder why.

Has the UK become a more polite society?

Are people just afraid to shit-post?

Or, have the ever-present censorious overlords of the UK interweb become jaded by the everyone and everything is hateful cancel culture?


.

Subjects don't have freedom of speech

Actually, UK does recognize a right to expression under the Human Rights Act, Article 10.

Like, our 1st Amendment some regulation is permitted.

Now, I doubt it has the common law strength our fundamental and incorporated 1st Amendment rights.

My understanding of UK’s laws, in Britain at least, is that there is no deeper between the local jurisdiction and the federal/crown jurisdiction. Therefore, the Brit law would not need a legal framework like the Incorporation Doctrine to apply the right at a local level.

If you can go to jail for meme, your might have a privilege, you don't have a right - our first amendment IS NOT exclusively for approved speech -

you have have your opinion, but it's prima facia false

Again, we do not know the context. In the U.S. one could be imprisoned for calling President Adams a fat tyrant. The S. Ct., never ruled on that. The next Administration and Congress did away with the law.

The fact remains, UK recognizes a right to speech/expression. That is just a fact. You can go read the codification in the law, or all the English precedents.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, we do not know the context. In the U.S. one could be imprisoned for calling President Adams a fat tyrant. The S. Ct., never ruled on that. The next Administration and Congress did away with the law.

The fact remains, UK recognizes a right to speech/expression. That is just a fact. You can go read the codification in the law, or all the English precedents.

and yet people go to jail for MEMEs - de lei vs fact -- oh, and the UK isn't in the EU anymore, you might have heard of brexit?

if you can go to jail for relatively inoffensive speech, you ain't got FREEDOM of speech--

why has no one ever been taken to court overing calling the president a fat tyrant (which being able to proves that perhaps you forget what tyrant means) is because these is NO PC for a charge -- no damn fool would take the case, and no judge would allow it, as it's baseless --

oh, look, the sky is grey here today -- are you going to argue about THAT observed fact, too?

Again, and you cannot get around this, the UK has codified a right to speech/expression. You cannot look it up. The English Constitution recognizes that right.

You can first learn all the FS ts of these cars, and compare those facts to the precedents that make up the English Constitution on porch/expression, along with the codified law.

Then you will have an educated option.

You have been proven wrong that no right exists, and Shanks has proven the UK has abolished the notion of subjects by codified law.

Does anyone has an example of a message that sends people to court in the UK?

Oh, and arrest are not convictions. It may very well be under UK law, these arrest based on the facts, in whole or in part, will not support convictions.

Yes, being arrested is awful. Folks are arrested or charged everyday that when a prosecutor looks at it for conviction says, “ Thete is no crime here. Dismissed.” I have.


Is UK’s speech/expression rights as strong as our? Maybe not. That does not change the fact UK recognizes a right.

Except people have been arrested and convicted and jailed over MEMEs in the UK



JL Rowling was threatened with imprisonment over tweets

https://www.instagram.com/reel...gsh=aDgzdGU1dWFrenAz

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-o...itish-182013674.html

Will the U.S. offer political asylum to British citizens arrested over non-crime hate incidents?

Eva Terry
Wed, April 30, 2025 at 11:20 AM MST

"Winston Marshall, former Mumford & Sons banjo player turned political podcaster, joined the White House press briefing on Monday as the first Brit to ever fill the independent media seat — and his questions surprised press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“In Britain, we have had over a quarter of a million people issued non-crime hate incidents. As we speak, there are people in prison for quite literally reposting memes,” Marshall said, adding, “We have extensive prison sentences for tweets, social media posts and general free speech issues.” He then asked, “Would the Trump administration consider political asylum for British citizens in such a situation?”

She responded, “I have not heard that proposed to the president, nor have I spoken to him about that idea, but I certainly can and talk to our national security team and see if it’s something the administration would entertain.”


.

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

Last summer there were a series of riots here after allegations were posted online that someone who murdered 3 young girls was a Muslim illegal immigrant. I’m aware that those who stirred up the violence were arrested.

I don’t have any issue with arresting people who incite violence or hatred online, but is that what the OP was about?

That said there is to much fuss made about posting hurty words which might upset people - if someone calls you fat and you are fat, get over it. The world and life can be shitty, face reality.

A teacher was murdered in France for showing his class obscene pictures of the prophet Mohamed. Or that what the person who murdered Samuel Paty thought he had done. In fact it all stemmed from false accusations made on line by the father of a student who wasnt even in his class that day.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

There's no paywall on my end.

Not surprised the Kingdom is hiding the story from you.

I also hope I'm not arrested the next time I transit London's Heathrow because I shared it.


.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

There's no paywall on my end.

Not surprised the Kingdom is hiding the story from you.

I also hope I'm not arrested the next time I transit London's Heathrow because I shared it.


.

subjects ...

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

There's no paywall on my end.

Not surprised the Kingdom is hiding the story from you.

I also hope I'm not arrested the next time I transit London's Heathrow because I shared it.


.

It's the Times group who impose the paywall.

Similarly I hope I don't get pulled off the street next time im on your side of the pond and deported for my views on trump

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

There's no paywall on my end.

Not surprised the Kingdom is hiding the story from you.

I also hope I'm not arrested the next time I transit London's Heathrow because I shared it.


.

It's the Times group who impose the paywall.

Similarly I hope I don't get pulled off the street next time im on your side of the pond and deported for my views on trump

Be sure to book your hotel in advance


https://www.usatoday.com/story...-border/83195396007/

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

There's no paywall on my end.

Not surprised the Kingdom is hiding the story from you.

I also hope I'm not arrested the next time I transit London's Heathrow because I shared it.


.

It's the Times group who impose the paywall.

Similarly I hope I don't get pulled off the street next time im on your side of the pond and deported for my views on trump

Be sure to book your hotel in advance


https://www.usatoday.com/story...-border/83195396007/

Steve, that's the most egregious violation of free speech I've ever come across.


.

The OP link is behind a paywall for me.

Last summer there were a series of riots here after allegations were posted online that someone who murdered 3 young girls was a Muslim illegal immigrant. I’m aware that those who stirred up the violence were arrested.

I don’t have any issue with arresting people who incite violence or hatred online, but is that what the OP was about?

That said there is to much fuss made about posting hurty words which might upset people - if someone calls you fat and you are fat, get over it. The world and life can be shitty, face reality.

A teacher was murdered in France for showing his class obscene pictures of the prophet Mohamed. Oppression that what the person who murdered Samuel Paty thought he had done. In fact it all stemmed from false accusations made on line by the father of a student who wasnt even in his class that day.


I don’t know why this has posted more than once, and at different times too, I only wrote and listed it a single time. Very odd.

Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES

Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
Civil liberties groups say that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using vague laws
Parents arrested for online harassment.
Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES
Charlie Parker | Yennah Smart | George Willoughby
Friday April 04 2025, 9.20pm BST, The Times
The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.

Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.

Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.


Increasing over time
Number of arrests made under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 police forces in England and Wales

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.

Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.


The statistics have provoked criticism from civil liberties groups that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using “vague” communications laws.

As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued Crown Prosecution Service guidance stating that offensive social media messages should only lead to prosecution in “extreme circumstances”.

Analysis of government data shows that the number of convictions and sentencings for communications offences has dramatically decreased over the past decade.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, there were 1,119 sentencings for Section 127 and Section 1 offences in 2023, down by almost half since 2015 when 1,995 people were found guilty of the crimes.


Downwards trend
Number of sentences under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 recorded by the Ministry of Justice


There are several reasons for arrests not resulting in sentencing, such as out-of-court resolutions. But the most common is “evidential difficulties”, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action.

There has been an outcry about police “overreach” and fears that officers could be “curtailing democracy” by arresting people for malicious communications offences.

The Times reported last week that Hertfordshire police sent six officers to detain a couple and put them in a cell for eight hours after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and “disparaging” comments made in a WhatsApp group.

Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action.

A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple.

Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.


Search authors, topics, headlines
Search

UK

World

Comment

Business & Money

Sport

Life & Style

Culture

Puzzles

Magazines
More
Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
Civil liberties groups say that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using vague laws
Parents arrested for online harassment.
Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES
Charlie Parker | Yennah Smart | George Willoughby
Friday April 04 2025, 9.20pm BST, The Times
The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.

Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.

Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.


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.

Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.

Advertisement
The statistics have provoked criticism from civil liberties groups that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using “vague” communications laws.

As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued Crown Prosecution Service guidance stating that offensive social media messages should only lead to prosecution in “extreme circumstances”.

Analysis of government data shows that the number of convictions and sentencings for communications offences has dramatically decreased over the past decade.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, there were 1,119 sentencings for Section 127 and Section 1 offences in 2023, down by almost half since 2015 when 1,995 people were found guilty of the crimes.


There are several reasons for arrests not resulting in sentencing, such as out-of-court resolutions. But the most common is “evidential difficulties”, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action.

Advertisement
There has been an outcry about police “overreach” and fears that officers could be “curtailing democracy” by arresting people for malicious communications offences.

The Times reported last week that Hertfordshire police sent six officers to detain a couple and put them in a cell for eight hours after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and “disparaging” comments made in a WhatsApp group.

Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action.

A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple.

Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.

Advertisement
A person in handcuffs being arrested by a police officer.
Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day
RASID NECATI ASLIM/GETTY IMAGES
According to the data obtained by The Times, the force with the highest number of arrests in 2023 was the Metropolitan Police (1,709), the largest force in the UK, followed by West Yorkshire (963) and Thames Valley (939). However, when adjusted for population, Leicestershire police had the highest rate of arrests per 100,000 with 83. Cumbria police was second (58) and Northamptonshire police third (50).

How forces compare
Number of arrests made under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the rate per 100,000

The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections.

Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties group, said the increase of arrests for communications offences is “seriously concerning”.

He said: “Police look to be wasting countless hours on arresting people for posting things online that, while offensive, are not illegal. Heavy-handed use of vague communications offences is a threat to everyone’s freedom to express themselves online.

“Police must remember that free speech is a right, and only intervene when absolutely necessary, because needless arrests for social media posts have a chilling effect that will cause the decline of our democratic culture.

“These statistics are seriously concerning and the home secretary should instigate an independent review into police arrests for online speech and the health of free expression in the UK.”

Toby Young, the founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said his organisation was helping half a dozen people who were being prosecuted for section 127 or section 1 offences.

They include David Wootton, 40, who is appealing against a conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party last year.




Search authors, topics, headlines
Search

UK

World

Comment

Business & Money

Sport

Life & Style

Culture

Puzzles

Magazines
More
Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages
Civil liberties groups say that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using vague laws
Parents arrested for online harassment.
Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property
SIMON JACOBS FOR THE TIMES
Charlie Parker | Yennah Smart | George Willoughby
Friday April 04 2025, 9.20pm BST, The Times
The police are making more than 30 arrests a day over offensive posts on social media and other platforms.

Thousands of people are being detained and questioned for sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail.

Custody data obtained by The Times shows that officers are making about 12,000 arrests a year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.


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.

Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.

Advertisement
The statistics have provoked criticism from civil liberties groups that the authorities are over-policing the internet and threatening free speech using “vague” communications laws.

As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued Crown Prosecution Service guidance stating that offensive social media messages should only lead to prosecution in “extreme circumstances”.

Analysis of government data shows that the number of convictions and sentencings for communications offences has dramatically decreased over the past decade.

According to Ministry of Justice figures, there were 1,119 sentencings for Section 127 and Section 1 offences in 2023, down by almost half since 2015 when 1,995 people were found guilty of the crimes.


There are several reasons for arrests not resulting in sentencing, such as out-of-court resolutions. But the most common is “evidential difficulties”, specifically that the victim does not support taking further action.

Advertisement
There has been an outcry about police “overreach” and fears that officers could be “curtailing democracy” by arresting people for malicious communications offences.

The Times reported last week that Hertfordshire police sent six officers to detain a couple and put them in a cell for eight hours after their child’s primary school objected to the volume of emails they sent and “disparaging” comments made in a WhatsApp group.

Maxie Allen, 50, and Rosalind Levine, 46, were questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications and causing a nuisance on school property. After a five-week investigation, the police concluded that there should be no further action.

A police officer also said that elected officials could be treated as harassment suspects if they continued advocating for the couple.

Andy Prophet, chief constable of Hertfordshire, defended the arrests, saying that the force had given warnings and they were lawful, although he conceded that “with the benefit of hindsight we could have achieved the same ends in a different way”.

Advertisement
A person in handcuffs being arrested by a police officer.
Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day
RASID NECATI ASLIM/GETTY IMAGES
According to the data obtained by The Times, the force with the highest number of arrests in 2023 was the Metropolitan Police (1,709), the largest force in the UK, followed by West Yorkshire (963) and Thames Valley (939). However, when adjusted for population, Leicestershire police had the highest rate of arrests per 100,000 with 83. Cumbria police was second (58) and Northamptonshire police third (50).


The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections.

Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties group, said the increase of arrests for communications offences is “seriously concerning”.

He said: “Police look to be wasting countless hours on arresting people for posting things online that, while offensive, are not illegal. Heavy-handed use of vague communications offences is a threat to everyone’s freedom to express themselves online.

“Police must remember that free speech is a right, and only intervene when absolutely necessary, because needless arrests for social media posts have a chilling effect that will cause the decline of our democratic culture.

Advertisement
“These statistics are seriously concerning and the home secretary should instigate an independent review into police arrests for online speech and the health of free expression in the UK.”

Toby Young, the founder and director of the Free Speech Union, said his organisation was helping half a dozen people who were being prosecuted for section 127 or section 1 offences.

They include David Wootton, 40, who is appealing against a conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party last year.

Man in a keffiyeh and t-shirt that says "I love Ariana Grande".
David Wootton dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, for a Halloween party
He had posted images on social media showing him wearing an Arabic-style headdress, and the slogan “I love Ariana Grande” on his T-shirt, and carrying a rucksack with “Boom” and “TNT” written on the front. Wootton was arrested and admitted sending an offensive message online. He faces up to two years in prison.

Young accused police forces of being “over-zealous in pursuing people for alleged speech crimes”.

He added: “Given that only 11 per cent of the violent and sexual offence cases in England and Wales were closed after a suspect was caught or charged in the year to June 2024, a steep decline on previous years, it seems extraordinary that the police are wasting so much time arresting people for hurty words.

“Sir Keir Starmer emphatically denied there is a free speech crisis in Britain when JD Vance raised this with him at the White House, but this data suggests we have a serious problem.”

A suspect arrested on suspicion of malicious communications may have also been arrested on suspicion of other linked offences. So while they might not have been sentenced for that offence, they might for another offence if it was part of the same incident.

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.

“They may also be serious domestic abuse-related crimes. Our staff must assess all of the information to determine if the threshold to record a crime has been met.

“Where a malicious communications offence is believed to have taken place, appropriate action will be taken. Our staff must consider whether the communication may be an expression which would be considered to be freedom of speech. While it may be unacceptable to be rude or offensive it is not unlawful — unless the communication is ‘grossly offensive’.

“Freedom of speech is enshrined within our society, and while communications may be rude, impolite or offensive, they may not be unlawful. Decisions are made taking this into consideration and if found not to be unlawful, will not be recorded as a crime.”

Other police forces deferred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which did not provide a comment.

quote:

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.

Every state has a similar law making such speech a crime: 1) terroristic threatening, 2) harassing communications, and 3) stalking and online bullying laws.

Sorry how the copy paste re-formatted Nute but beggars can't be choosers.

Oh, and if you should recieve a collect call from "Ty" at the Heathrow Graybar Hotel in the future, please accept the charges.

Of course, that goes both ways, should the Trump goons scoop you up while you're here.
Call me direct, I know a guy in Kentucky who would probably help.


.

It is what due process is for.

No person shall be deprived of of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

No person.

Genuinely curious LHeym500
Have you at any time been involved in a case in which a defendant was arrested and charged with violating the first amendment by sending messages that cause “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others via the internet, telephone or mail?


.

That is the definition of harassing communications.

KY statute

(a) Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone,
telegraph, mail, or any other form of electronic or written communication in a
manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate
communication;

There is not a state in the Union that does not have a similar law. That includes Texas.

Texas law:
a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person:
1) initiates communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;

(2) threatens, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of the person's family or household, or the person's property;

(4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another;

(5) makes a telephone call and intentionally fails to hang up or disengage the connection;

(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person's control to be used by another to commit an offense under this section;

4-6 catches simulate behavior you are complaining about in Texas.


Again, we are not even address threats, online bullying, or stalking laws.

Interesting, thanks.

Annoyance, that serves no purpose of legitimate communication, intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, comments, requests, suggestions, or proposals that are obscene, anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another; or cause anxiety

The very definition of the ARPF.

I'll save YOU the annoyance of me posting a smiley emoticon, lol...


.

Deleted duplicated post

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
Sorry how the copy paste re-formatted Nute but beggars can't be choosers.

Oh, and if you should recieve a collect call from "Ty" at the Heathrow Graybar Hotel in the future, please accept the charges.

Of course, that goes both ways, should the Trump goons scoop you up while you're here.
Call me direct, I know a guy in Kentucky who would probably help.


.

I do agree it seems a case of overreach and the misinterpretation of a law which is there to stop online abuse. With all the problems we face you’d think police time would be better spent on other things.

As Heym says, these cases are subject to due process, but it’s still a waste of time and money.

If you get detained at Heathrow give me a call

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

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.

Every state has a similar law making such speech a crime: 1) terroristic threatening, 2) harassing communications, and 3) stalking and online bullying laws.

I get it, you have nil international experience - if you can be arrested over a MEME or a Halloween costume, you do NOT have freedom of speech and expression -- you are a SUBJECT -

I'll admit it, i have NO CLUE why you are carrying on arguing about this - honey, when the censors can nab you over a costume , you aint free - it's a privilege

JW Rowling was threatened with jail time over posting her opinion that "woman" should be biological women ONLY, and the UK High Court finally agreed with her - but she was apparently in violation for that simple expression

but the persons bullying her and hounding her WERE NOT found in violation ---

when you have "freedom" of compelled speech, it aint a right, no matter what the label -- shesh

quote:

JW Rowling was threatened with jail time over posting her opinion that "woman" should be biological women ONLY, and the UK High Court finally agreed with her - but she was apparently in violation for that simple expression

You’ve been reading to many conspiracy theory’s Jeff. The above is wrong, Rowling was protesting about Scotland hate crime law and posted comments about trans people which she thought would trigger the law. The authorities in Scotland said what she did didn’t constitute a trigger for the law.

Rishi Sunak, our PM at the time said people should not be criminalised for stating the simple fact of biology.

For the record I believe that arresting the guy for his party costume was bloody stupid, it’s not as if the police done have enough else to do. As Heym has said, we have due process and I’m sure the police will be found to be wrong and that the guy can wear his Arab costume, though he is equally dumb for doing so.

I have no problem with laws which are aimed at preventing incitement of violence, harassment or abuse online. The issue may be with the police misusing such laws, hence the need for due process.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51j64lk2l8o

And Trump just announce if you are applying for American citizenship you better not have criticized Israel!

quote:

You’ve been reading to many conspiracy theory’s Jeff. The above is wrong, Rowling was protesting about Scotland hate crime law and posted comments about trans people which she thought would trigger the law. The authorities in Scotland said what she did didn’t constitute a trigger for the law.

Only because they didn’t want a fight with her.

Ms. Rowling posted examples of similar speech causing arrests on her X page at the time.

She was daring them and they blinked.

https://www.reuters.com/articl...s-row-idUSL8N2EF396/

except she was posting these thoughts years before the "new law" -

and JK didn't initiate "contact" with the law,

quote:

Siobhian Brown, Scotland's minister for victims and community safety, suggested Rowling could be investigated there for deliberately referring to someone by the wrong pronouns.

quote:

Siobhian Brown, the SNP's community safety minister, told The Telegraph that, for example, calling a transgender woman "he" instead of by the pronouns which align with their gender identity could be considered a criminal offense.

https://www.newsweek.com/jk-ro...-x-followers-1886782

https://www.newsweek.com/jk-ro...te-law-crime-1885547

JK THEN dared them to arrest and try her - She's only the rickest woman in the UK --

it is NOT free speech where calling a HE and HE "could be considered a criminal offense"

I didn’t mean to suggest she did initiate contact with the law. I don’t know much about the Scottish community safety minister but she’s allowed her opinion on this, even if she is, thankfully, wrong.

I believe the police confirmed that they hadn’t had any complaints about JKR’s comments/ posts. You/ lane may be right they didn’t want a fight about it but I would suggest Sunaks comments at the time show the governments view on it. As you are aware the Supreme Court ( ours not yours) has recently ruled on the definition of a woman.

quote:

As you are aware the Supreme Court ( ours not yours) has recently ruled on the definition of a woman.

Credit where credit is due on that one.