4 ms·

The "special thing" in terms of authoritarianism was the arrest part, not the tweet part. Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK, as

by dfxm12 4y ago

The "special thing" in terms of authoritarianism was the arrest part, not the tweet part. Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK, as evidenced by anti-monarchist protesters getting arrested for expressing their views during Charles' proclamation.

mort96 4y ago
If I was talking about someone arrested for speaking against the monarchy on Twitter, I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet", maybe I would talk about someone being "arrested for tweeting critically about the monarchy" or just "arrested for being critical of the monarchy". If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.
- karatinversion 4y ago
  An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted > the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
  - skorpeon87 4y ago
    That's certainly crass, but it shouldn't be illegal to say. If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.
- robswc 4y ago
  >I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet" When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.
- jolmg 4y ago
  > If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.
slg 4y ago
>Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here? And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.
- robswc 4y ago
  >And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. Do you have a source for the ones you are referencing? I looked a few and they track things like "whether both men and women feel comfortable expressing themselves in public" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... And very few seem to give proper weight to objective measurements like laws and actual consequences of speech.
  - slg 4y ago
    There are plenty of them. You can start here[1] and do digging to find whichever one you think is most appropriate. It has been years since I have looked at any of these in depth, but the general consensus has often been that at our best the US is on par with countries like Australia and the UK and is occasionally a tier bellow those two. I'm not aware of any that have us a tier above either of them when it comes to general freedom metrics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
    - robswc 4y ago
      I looked at a random few of those and I honestly believe their categories are too broad/subjective. Funny enough, downloading an actual report (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021), the UK scores almost perfect (9.8) on "Freedom of internet Expression." The country where you can quite literally be arrested for making an offensive tweet (not a threat), scores just shy of 10/10 on internet freedom? Are the arrests the reason for losing 0.2? I would _love_ to see the methodology behind that score. Germany, the country where you can have your house literally raided over calling a politician a "dick", scores 9.36 "Internet Expression." 9's are some of the highest scores you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... The institutions that put these together have 0 skin in the game. I have tried to find how they create their "indicators" but haven't found anything. I honestly just cannot take these reports seriously unless someone has an answer for how countries that can arrest citizens over offensive tweets could score so high on this particular metric.

by dfxm12 4y ago

mort96 4y ago

If I was talking about someone arrested for speaking against the monarchy on Twitter, I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet", maybe I would talk about someone being "arrested for tweeting critically about the monarchy" or just "arrested for being critical of the monarchy". If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.

karatinversion 4y ago
An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted > the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
- skorpeon87 4y ago
  That's certainly crass, but it shouldn't be illegal to say. If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.
robswc 4y ago
>I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet" When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.
jolmg 4y ago
> If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.

slg 4y ago

>Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here? And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.

robswc 4y ago
>And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. Do you have a source for the ones you are referencing? I looked a few and they track things like "whether both men and women feel comfortable expressing themselves in public" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... And very few seem to give proper weight to objective measurements like laws and actual consequences of speech.
- slg 4y ago
  There are plenty of them. You can start here[1] and do digging to find whichever one you think is most appropriate. It has been years since I have looked at any of these in depth, but the general consensus has often been that at our best the US is on par with countries like Australia and the UK and is occasionally a tier bellow those two. I'm not aware of any that have us a tier above either of them when it comes to general freedom metrics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
  - robswc 4y ago
    I looked at a random few of those and I honestly believe their categories are too broad/subjective. Funny enough, downloading an actual report (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021), the UK scores almost perfect (9.8) on "Freedom of internet Expression." The country where you can quite literally be arrested for making an offensive tweet (not a threat), scores just shy of 10/10 on internet freedom? Are the arrests the reason for losing 0.2? I would _love_ to see the methodology behind that score. Germany, the country where you can have your house literally raided over calling a politician a "dick", scores 9.36 "Internet Expression." 9's are some of the highest scores you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... The institutions that put these together have 0 skin in the game. I have tried to find how they create their "indicators" but haven't found anything. I honestly just cannot take these reports seriously unless someone has an answer for how countries that can arrest citizens over offensive tweets could score so high on this particular metric.