6 ms·

What could go wrong? The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. > Now every force in the country has a team sifting thro

What could go wrong? The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. > Now every force in the country has a team sifting through people’s posts trying to determine what crosses an undefined threshold. “It is a complete nightmare,” one officer admits Britain’s police are restricting speech in worrying ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... From The Economist

HPsquared 1y ago
12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. I wonder what the stats were in East Germany (though they may have had harsher punishments.. that can be ratcheted up later though once the system is in place)
- cryptoegorophy 1y ago
  Per gpt: Estimates vary, but roughly 250,000–300,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons over the GDR’s 41-year existence—an average of ~6,000–7,000 annually. Just wow. I wonder if we will study this in history textbooks about downfall of UK
  - AnnikaL 1y ago
    The population of East Germany in 1990 was 16 million, while the population of the UK today is over 4 times larger at 68 million. (I still don't think the UK should jail people for being hateful online, though.)
  - jansper39 1y ago
    As a resident of the UK I can safely say, no we will not, as we are categorically not arresting 12K people a year for simply posting things online. I would be more likely to include some sections about the current US administration though.
    - miohtama 1y ago
      To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of people arrested daily for non-threatening, online communication offences, and what assessment they have made of the implications of such arrests for freedom of speech. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807CB70-D90D-4A19-9433-99539B7CF21F/OnlineCommunicationOffenceArrests https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807C...
  - immibis 1y ago
    It depends what you count as political reasons. Plausible bullshit could be generated to support the idea that arrest for any particular crime is political, or just as easily, to oppose that idea. I draw the bar for "political arrest" at somewhere like "arrested for opposing the incumbent in an election". I don't think "arrested for saying it's time to gas the muslims" - which is the sort of thing happening in the UK and getting counted in these numbers - should be called "political arrest". That's just called committing a crime. That would only become a "political arrest" if gassing the muslims was a politically acceptable viewpoint, equal in value to not gassing them.
- rpledge 1y ago
  East Germany fell in 1990 - I doubt there were even 12,000 people online in East Germany at that point in time.
  - mtmail 1y ago
    Nobody was online. TLD .dd was registered but no domains registered. Two universities had a small intranet.
- slater 1y ago
  > 12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. (i think OP might be speedrunning a "what opinions, mfer?" goose meme thing. i bet the reason is "for posting right-wing nationalistic garbage likely to incite hatred", or similar)
  - Ray20 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - andybak 1y ago
      > as far as I understand If you're going to post about something so contentious, then bring receipts. We've all got things we vaguely remember that confirm our prejudices. But posting them without fact-checking oneself is crossing a line on topics like this.
- Fluorescence 1y ago
  It's mostly far-right shit-stirring because it's a much broader set of crimes than you are being led to believe. It's basically every possible crime "by communication": "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." I expect it's mostly domestic abuse cases because what was once screamed through a closed door is now messaged online. When a family member starts threatening others, an arrest is probably the necessary intervention to prevent actual violence. It's a similar story in cases like e.g. community racial tensions and gang violence. Once the threats are happening online, real violence is imminent and action warranted.
tolien 1y ago
[citation needed], your Economist article [0] quotes 30 a day (which would be <11k a year) but muddies the water pretty significantly: > Under these laws, British police arrest more than 30 people a day for online posts, double the rate in 2017. Some are serious offenders, such as stalkers. How many of those 30 were for "online posts" (and of which nature - Lucy Connolly is a favourite example cited by the likes of Vance, but she was arrested for trying to stir up racial tension when there were already race riots going on)? Who can tell, because the article didn't seem to bother asking. 0: For anyone curious, https://archive.ph/vaCkJ#selection-1287.0-1298.0 https://archive.ph/vaCkJ#selection-1287.0-1298.0
- aunty_helen 1y ago
  Ridiculous thing to say when any number north of 0 is too many. But go ahead, muddy an otherwise extraordinarily simple argument.
  - tolien 1y ago
    Muddying the "simple argument" would be lumping stalkers in with people inciting violence against foreigners and posting nasty comments about the Prime Minister, to make some kind of point about the police. That would be ridiculous.
    - aunty_helen 1y ago
      Stalking: Already a Crime Inciting Violence: Already a Crime Posting nasty comments: Not a crime. Glad I could clear things up for you.
      - tolien 1y ago
        Yet implying people are being arrested for the latter, while showing examples of the first two. Clear as mud.
        Xss3 1y ago
belter 1y ago
> The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. I though it could not be true, but actually it is...WTF? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-002239_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-0022...
- geek_at 1y ago
  In Europe we don't value free speech as high as the US. There is "forbidden speech" (around lying about Holocaust related topics and insulting people online) and I think it's a good thing in total. You spew out the worst of the worst on the internet you should be able to be held accountable
  - giantg2 1y ago
    US has plenty of arrests for terroristic threats and similar. Many of these are online now. 12k arrests per year related to online posts doesn't sound all that high.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      Making terrorist threats are different than insulting some's religion, complaining about illegal immigrant crimes or shitting on politicians online. It's disingenuous to argue they're in the same ballpark that EU and US speech is similarly policed because it's not.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        Not terrorist threats - terroristic threats. This includes anything that someone might think is threatening. Do you have examples of non-threatening language resulting in arrest in the UK?
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >Not terrorist threats - terroristic threats. This includes anything that someone might think is threatening WAHAT?! Are we making up new terms for "someone offended me online and since I feel threatened I call it terroristic"? Actual threats are already legally defined and punished. So is terrorism. So it's either terrorism or it's not, and it's either a threat or it's not.
cmsj 1y ago
On the one hand, freedom of speech is great. On the other hand, you have whatever the fuck is going on in America these days, and that is not great. So... I dunno, neither option is good.
- NooneAtAll3 1y ago
  there was twitter cancelling before, and people that aren't fine with America now were fine back then that's normal
Xss3 1y ago
Is it surprising that 12,000 out of 60,000,000 post illegal things like calls for violence (burn migrants to death, etc) per year? Reminder that incitement is a crime in the USA too and there's nothing in the constitution that says it's okay just because it's on twitter not irl. So far every story ive seen about arrest has been pretty cut and dry, they were blatantly hitler level racist, homophobic, or calling for others to attack people for their protected characteristics (eg race or sex).
giantg2 1y ago
I would bet the US arrests a similar number for online posts. A common one that comes up over here is a kid posting a picture at a shooting range, without any threat, and the police questioning/arresting the kid and/or parents. Same thing for kids talking about a video game and stuff. Edit: why disagree?
RetpolineDrama 1y ago
We need to apply sanctions, and end all intelligence sharing with the UK until they stop this nonsense.
- bigfudge 1y ago
  I think Trump has guaranteed that European countries have ended all real intelligence sharing pretty much unilaterally.
- jansper39 1y ago
  How do you expect to spy on US citizens if you don't get the five eyes to help out?
- andybak 1y ago
  Or we need to do a tiny bit more research before jumping to conclusions. UK law in this regard is far from perfect but this thread is mainly uninformed knee-jerking.
magwa101 1y ago
[dead]

HPsquared 1y ago

12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. I wonder what the stats were in East Germany (though they may have had harsher punishments.. that can be ratcheted up later though once the system is in place)

cryptoegorophy 1y ago
Per gpt: Estimates vary, but roughly 250,000–300,000 people were imprisoned for political reasons over the GDR’s 41-year existence—an average of ~6,000–7,000 annually. Just wow. I wonder if we will study this in history textbooks about downfall of UK
- AnnikaL 1y ago
  The population of East Germany in 1990 was 16 million, while the population of the UK today is over 4 times larger at 68 million. (I still don't think the UK should jail people for being hateful online, though.)
- jansper39 1y ago
  As a resident of the UK I can safely say, no we will not, as we are categorically not arresting 12K people a year for simply posting things online. I would be more likely to include some sections about the current US administration though.
  - miohtama 1y ago
    To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of people arrested daily for non-threatening, online communication offences, and what assessment they have made of the implications of such arrests for freedom of speech. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807CB70-D90D-4A19-9433-99539B7CF21F/OnlineCommunicationOffenceArrests https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-07-17/debates/F807C...
- immibis 1y ago
  It depends what you count as political reasons. Plausible bullshit could be generated to support the idea that arrest for any particular crime is political, or just as easily, to oppose that idea. I draw the bar for "political arrest" at somewhere like "arrested for opposing the incumbent in an election". I don't think "arrested for saying it's time to gas the muslims" - which is the sort of thing happening in the UK and getting counted in these numbers - should be called "political arrest". That's just called committing a crime. That would only become a "political arrest" if gassing the muslims was a politically acceptable viewpoint, equal in value to not gassing them.
rpledge 1y ago
East Germany fell in 1990 - I doubt there were even 12,000 people online in East Germany at that point in time.
- mtmail 1y ago
  Nobody was online. TLD .dd was registered but no domains registered. Two universities had a small intranet.
slater 1y ago
> 12k a year?!? That is a staggering number. (i think OP might be speedrunning a "what opinions, mfer?" goose meme thing. i bet the reason is "for posting right-wing nationalistic garbage likely to incite hatred", or similar)
- Ray20 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - andybak 1y ago
    > as far as I understand If you're going to post about something so contentious, then bring receipts. We've all got things we vaguely remember that confirm our prejudices. But posting them without fact-checking oneself is crossing a line on topics like this.
Fluorescence 1y ago
It's mostly far-right shit-stirring because it's a much broader set of crimes than you are being led to believe. It's basically every possible crime "by communication": "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." I expect it's mostly domestic abuse cases because what was once screamed through a closed door is now messaged online. When a family member starts threatening others, an arrest is probably the necessary intervention to prevent actual violence. It's a similar story in cases like e.g. community racial tensions and gang violence. Once the threats are happening online, real violence is imminent and action warranted.

tolien 1y ago

[citation needed], your Economist article [0] quotes 30 a day (which would be <11k a year) but muddies the water pretty significantly: > Under these laws, British police arrest more than 30 people a day for online posts, double the rate in 2017. Some are serious offenders, such as stalkers. How many of those 30 were for "online posts" (and of which nature - Lucy Connolly is a favourite example cited by the likes of Vance, but she was arrested for trying to stir up racial tension when there were already race riots going on)? Who can tell, because the article didn't seem to bother asking. 0: For anyone curious, https://archive.ph/vaCkJ#selection-1287.0-1298.0 https://archive.ph/vaCkJ#selection-1287.0-1298.0

aunty_helen 1y ago
Ridiculous thing to say when any number north of 0 is too many. But go ahead, muddy an otherwise extraordinarily simple argument.
- tolien 1y ago
  Muddying the "simple argument" would be lumping stalkers in with people inciting violence against foreigners and posting nasty comments about the Prime Minister, to make some kind of point about the police. That would be ridiculous.
  - aunty_helen 1y ago
    Stalking: Already a Crime Inciting Violence: Already a Crime Posting nasty comments: Not a crime. Glad I could clear things up for you.
    - tolien 1y ago
      Yet implying people are being arrested for the latter, while showing examples of the first two. Clear as mud.
      - Xss3 1y ago

belter 1y ago

> The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online. I though it could not be true, but actually it is...WTF? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-002239_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-0022...

geek_at 1y ago
In Europe we don't value free speech as high as the US. There is "forbidden speech" (around lying about Holocaust related topics and insulting people online) and I think it's a good thing in total. You spew out the worst of the worst on the internet you should be able to be held accountable
- giantg2 1y ago
  US has plenty of arrests for terroristic threats and similar. Many of these are online now. 12k arrests per year related to online posts doesn't sound all that high.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    Making terrorist threats are different than insulting some's religion, complaining about illegal immigrant crimes or shitting on politicians online. It's disingenuous to argue they're in the same ballpark that EU and US speech is similarly policed because it's not.
    - giantg2 1y ago
      Not terrorist threats - terroristic threats. This includes anything that someone might think is threatening. Do you have examples of non-threatening language resulting in arrest in the UK?
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >Not terrorist threats - terroristic threats. This includes anything that someone might think is threatening WAHAT?! Are we making up new terms for "someone offended me online and since I feel threatened I call it terroristic"? Actual threats are already legally defined and punished. So is terrorism. So it's either terrorism or it's not, and it's either a threat or it's not.

cmsj 1y ago

On the one hand, freedom of speech is great. On the other hand, you have whatever the fuck is going on in America these days, and that is not great. So... I dunno, neither option is good.

NooneAtAll3 1y ago
there was twitter cancelling before, and people that aren't fine with America now were fine back then that's normal

Xss3 1y ago

Is it surprising that 12,000 out of 60,000,000 post illegal things like calls for violence (burn migrants to death, etc) per year? Reminder that incitement is a crime in the USA too and there's nothing in the constitution that says it's okay just because it's on twitter not irl. So far every story ive seen about arrest has been pretty cut and dry, they were blatantly hitler level racist, homophobic, or calling for others to attack people for their protected characteristics (eg race or sex).

giantg2 1y ago

I would bet the US arrests a similar number for online posts. A common one that comes up over here is a kid posting a picture at a shooting range, without any threat, and the police questioning/arresting the kid and/or parents. Same thing for kids talking about a video game and stuff. Edit: why disagree?

RetpolineDrama 1y ago

We need to apply sanctions, and end all intelligence sharing with the UK until they stop this nonsense.

bigfudge 1y ago
I think Trump has guaranteed that European countries have ended all real intelligence sharing pretty much unilaterally.
jansper39 1y ago
How do you expect to spy on US citizens if you don't get the five eyes to help out?
andybak 1y ago
Or we need to do a tiny bit more research before jumping to conclusions. UK law in this regard is far from perfect but this thread is mainly uninformed knee-jerking.

magwa101 1y ago

[dead]