Everyone should read the case of the IT consultant getting arrested in the UK because he posted a photo of him doing some target shooting during a trip to the US: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/consultant-arrested-linkedin-s...

Stories like this quickly put to rest the idea that everyone who gets arrested must actually deserve it. The bar for posting content that violates the law is very low.

There was also the tragic story of the Cambridge professor who was completely unqualified and had a fake life story. When journalists would get close to the story he would report them to the police for harassment to spike the stories.

yes, its not legal to harass women getting an abortion. That includes being in a given range of an abortion clinic and making a political statement. What part of that is hard to understand?

People know the laws and yet they still do it thinking they're some sort of Catholic Batman. You want to change the law, do what we all do; write to your fucking MP, join a political party, campaign, donate. Don't harass someone vulnerable in a difficult state of mind and impose your morality upon them. Respect their choice and their agency.

In the US you can be arrested for the following speech:

* true threats of violence

* incitement to break the law specifically

* crimes of speech: soliciting crime, fraudulent representations, lying under oath

* stalking/cyberstalking

So lets quit this idea that its some abstract of "political orthodoxy". Stop framing crime as "difference of opinion". Hate speech and incitement to racial/religious hatred or violence are crimes here. People publishing hate speech online and then being all Pikachu face when they get arrested for breaking the law are not victims. The highest profile pretend victim was the wife of a Conservative Councillor who posted a message online that hundreds of thousands of people saw that encouraged people to set fire to hotels where asylum seekers were staying. The judges sentencing remarks were particularly eye opening given she demonstrated a relative lack of respect for the court ("If I get in trouble then I'll play the mental health card").

> they already arrest over 30 people a day for speech that offends the prevailing political orthodoxy.

This is completely false and comes from a commonly misrepresented statistic; '30 arrests a day' is plainly the arrests made under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 which includes things like online stalking and harassment. I hope you're just mistaken and not willfully implying that those issues are merely offensive to the prevailing political orthodoxy.

I think this is mostly being misrepresented.

There is speech and there are consequences for speech.

If I incite or state that I am going to commit violence, stalking, rape or murder, should I face consequences? Yes. That's what is happening.

There are outlying cases which will be used to discredit this perspective but reality is there are a hell of a lot of very not nice people out there making active threats and inciting hatred and violence.

And everyone gets their day in court.

You can get arrested for making a joke that might offend someone in a private whatsapp group. Doesn't even have to be political.

I think this is the link where the chap asks for legal advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1vxkcic/poli...

Anyone old enough to remember the London riots should remember the fact that the acting government issued a D notice to all broadcasters, preventing them from reporting the issue.

This is part of what started the death of BBM and proliferation of news via social media. You’d go on Twitter and see all the reports or riots and burning buildings then go to the BBC and… nothing.

All of this is to say that successive British governments, over a span of decades, have been actively destroying freedom of speech and a right to privacy for its citizens.

With AI and the rise of populism combined with the absolute decimation of the average person’s attention span it is going to get a lot worse.

I’d say it is a very low quality article. There is very little detail about what the offending speech actually includes. For example:

> The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post.

What did she say? The article does not elucidate.

Inciting violence for example is not legal. I believe spaces around abortion clinics are also to be free from demonstrations. US free speech absolutists seem to vehemently disagree until you say something unkind about Charlie Kirk or ICE.

The low point might be quoting Elon Musk. This is true in any context, but in particular here. The scandal is real, but none of it is about people being arrested for non-politically-correct speech.

There’s plenty of otherwise real stuff to poke the UK about.

The British Government has be consistently violating people's rights for decades and probably well before that.

Recently I saw a clip on GB News where one of their analyst said that anyone that opposes a war and/or conscription with Russia will need to put in prison. The show host, Jacob Rees Mogg and Lord Redwood saw nothing wrong with the statements.

None of these people have been in the armed forces and are too old to be called up for conscription.

> The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post.

Pretty sure she called for the murder, by arson, of asylum seekers although the article missed that bit out.

Sigh, this is an absolute bullshit figure and people need to stop parroting it - it's 30 arrests under the mal comms act which might include for example, phoning your ex girfriend to say you're coming to stab her. Or phoning in a bomb threat via telephone. Or any number of pretty terrible things it's perfectly reasonable to get nicked for. Or posting on Facebook telling everyone we should set the local migrant hotel on fire. These are not political prisoners.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-off...

What was the speech? I can't read beyond the paywall.

Yeah come on, that figure has been widely debunked.

Subjects, not citizens.

This is a deeply deranged opinion piece. The author ties himself into knots to conflate a tiny number of high profile instances involving social media posts with harassment and other negative behavior involving electronic communication.

How many of those 30 are unarguably "bad" posts though? Threats of violence and so forth.