4 ms·

UK Police Arrest 30 People Per Day for Internet Comments

54 points by A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
https://archive.ph/MPEjb https://archive.ph/MPEjb
like_any_other 2y ago
So often when media report on these speech crimes, they will allege that the messages were threatening or harassing or hateful, but rarely show them. Policing speech is a very delicate matter, so at the very minimum, the public should know exactly how the law is being applied, and not just take the police & court's word for it. To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction?
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  For legal reasons the media are worried about republishing material that is being deemed offensive, libelous, or criminal.
- defrost 2y ago
  > To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction? The UK police keep records of all police actions that result in arrest or warnings. Any evidence gathered at the time or later is attached to the file per action ID#. The article here is drawn from the results of an FOI request to the UK police database. The UK court system keeps a database of all actions advanced to prosecution before the courts. The numbers that enter the system, the numbers pleaded out, mediated out, dropped, brought before a judge, trial results be they dismissal, guilty, innocent. As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something, unless they, what, file a FOI request for every action ID#?
    - defrost 2y ago
      Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.
      - spwa4 2y ago
        The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
        defrost 2y ago
        > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
- benmmurphy 2y ago
  Some of it looks like 'small town' style intimidation where the group in control of the governing bodies will use law enforcement to intimidate anyone that might bring them embarrassment or threaten their power. The article even mentions a case where this happened: > 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”.
- ghusto 2y ago
  If you don't know what got others in trouble, you'll be overly careful with your own words. Most worrying is the fact that causing other "distress" with words is a crime. If I point out something you do that I find morally bankrupt, it _should_ cause you distress.
LinuxBender 2y ago
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. That is incredibly vague and highly subjective. One could flag half of the articles on Pubmed as "indecent". Perhaps the onus should be on the government to put an interface online that scores a string of text and gives a receipt that shows the government approves of said string of text. >Enter Text: Stop walking around the neighborhood showing Uranus to everyone >Approved: Verification Code >d33db33f42< >Enter Text: "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you, Malfoy?" >Denied: Cruel and unkind insult.
- deepfriedchokes 2y ago
  > That is incredibly vague and highly subjective. That’s probably intentional.
  - sebazzz 2y ago
    But also not necessarily bad.
    - BarbaPeru 2y ago
      It is bad because can be weaponized and give the judge a too wide area for interpretation.
      - sebazzz 2y ago
        Almost any UK/US legislation is purposely written to be interpreted though
silexia 2y ago
Shocking and horrifying. The UK is rapidly becoming a big brother dystopian nightmare. If you say something against the government in the UK now, they will put you in prison.
- RichardHesketh 2y ago
  That last sentence is baseless, alarmist nonsense. The rest, makes some sense. We are definitely one of the most surveilled societies in the western hemisphere, but just look at the press here. If you think there’s a fear of criticising government in the UK, except in a (probably paranoid) minority, you’re deluded. Let’s also remember that an arrest is a very long way from a conviction, and others have pointed out.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nhiiy4 2y ago
    [dead]
tempera 2y ago
I think this should be the standard across the globe. Too much free speech is not healthy for our planet. The 1st Amendment should also be rescinded and I am glad I have seen some headlines in major publications that voice concern for having such a thing in US.
engels_gibs 2y ago
But remember friends: China is a surveillance state, unlike freedom loving west.

54 points by A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

https://archive.ph/MPEjb https://archive.ph/MPEjb

So often when media report on these speech crimes, they will allege that the messages were threatening or harassing or hateful, but rarely show them. Policing speech is a very delicate matter, so at the very minimum, the public should know exactly how the law is being applied, and not just take the police & court's word for it. To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction?

mytailorisrich 2y ago
For legal reasons the media are worried about republishing material that is being deemed offensive, libelous, or criminal.
defrost 2y ago
> To that end - does the UK police keep or publish a database of messages/speech that triggered police action or conviction? The UK police keep records of all police actions that result in arrest or warnings. Any evidence gathered at the time or later is attached to the file per action ID#. The article here is drawn from the results of an FOI request to the UK police database. The UK court system keeps a database of all actions advanced to prosecution before the courts. The numbers that enter the system, the numbers pleaded out, mediated out, dropped, brought before a judge, trial results be they dismissal, guilty, innocent. As per the article, of the some 12,000 arrests or warning per recent years, only some 1,100 resulted in a sentence.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  That information is rather buried, isn't it? The average UK voter won't actually know how the law is being applied, beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something, unless they, what, file a FOI request for every action ID#?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Is it? Many countries only publicly release coarse totals, eg: in the UK the 12,000 annual police actions specific to this law are bundled in with ~465,000 other public order offences publicly released and totalled in: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/policeforceareadatatables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand... > beyond taking the BBC's word when it summarizes something Multiple individuals, media outlets, stats nerds, etc make these requests and publish or blog if discrepencies are seen. For example, this FOI request was made by The Times .. not the BBC.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      The whole point was to know WHAT these actions were in response to. Was it threatening individuals? Groups? Was it lying about government actions? Was it dick picks? WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. And the law is not much help: they're punished for "causing offence", not even specified to whom (mayors seem to be overrepresented, although there seem to also be majors on the receiving end)
      - defrost 2y ago
        > WHAT is happening here? We don't know. And the government is not saying, beyond publishing how much they're doing. It's the same for robberies, petty fraud, assaults, etc. Just the totals in broad categories are published. There is a reason for that, privacy, personal details of victims and the actually innocent although accused. These are things that take time, money, resources to scrub from the public record and so are not publicly published. The reporting done on robberies is done by reporters who understand the privacy laws and apply for access, by people that attend courts or pull transcripts and sign off on the privacy aspects. Researchers get full unfettered access to entire databases on the same basis. If you want to know more then take action to allocate funds to drill into the data, write to a newspaper and lobby for them to do the drudge work, approach universities that study crime stats. Crime reporters, and interested general public, look at the Court dailies and attend hearings on subjects of interest. That's how the public hears about details of a spicy robbery, fraud, or assault. That or parties involved alerting reporters.
benmmurphy 2y ago
Some of it looks like 'small town' style intimidation where the group in control of the governing bodies will use law enforcement to intimidate anyone that might bring them embarrassment or threaten their power. The article even mentions a case where this happened: > 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”.
ghusto 2y ago
If you don't know what got others in trouble, you'll be overly careful with your own words. Most worrying is the fact that causing other "distress" with words is a crime. If I point out something you do that I find morally bankrupt, it _should_ cause you distress.

LinuxBender 2y ago

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. That is incredibly vague and highly subjective. One could flag half of the articles on Pubmed as "indecent". Perhaps the onus should be on the government to put an interface online that scores a string of text and gives a receipt that shows the government approves of said string of text. >Enter Text: Stop walking around the neighborhood showing Uranus to everyone >Approved: Verification Code >d33db33f42< >Enter Text: "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you, Malfoy?" >Denied: Cruel and unkind insult.

deepfriedchokes 2y ago
> That is incredibly vague and highly subjective. That’s probably intentional.
- sebazzz 2y ago
  But also not necessarily bad.
  - BarbaPeru 2y ago
    It is bad because can be weaponized and give the judge a too wide area for interpretation.
    - sebazzz 2y ago
      Almost any UK/US legislation is purposely written to be interpreted though

silexia 2y ago

Shocking and horrifying. The UK is rapidly becoming a big brother dystopian nightmare. If you say something against the government in the UK now, they will put you in prison.

RichardHesketh 2y ago
That last sentence is baseless, alarmist nonsense. The rest, makes some sense. We are definitely one of the most surveilled societies in the western hemisphere, but just look at the press here. If you think there’s a fear of criticising government in the UK, except in a (probably paranoid) minority, you’re deluded. Let’s also remember that an arrest is a very long way from a conviction, and others have pointed out.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nhiiy4 2y ago
  [dead]

tempera 2y ago

I think this should be the standard across the globe. Too much free speech is not healthy for our planet. The 1st Amendment should also be rescinded and I am glad I have seen some headlines in major publications that voice concern for having such a thing in US.

engels_gibs 2y ago

But remember friends: China is a surveillance state, unlike freedom loving west.