5 ms·

[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, Brit

by 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
        It's slightly more nuanced. Attacking people for protected characteristics such as race, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, is also an offence. You can be a cunt all you want, just make sure you're being nasty about them as a person not their religion or race or whatever group you might feel they belong to All cases I've seen have been cut and dry in this regard. Racist or homophobic usually.
        tolien 1y ago
        Indeed, I didn't mean to imply those three were the only categories of things within "online posts"! Rather, that it's disingenous to lump all of that under one umbrella and suggest great swathes of people are being arrested for a tweet.
    - OtherShrezzing 1y ago
      I think Connelly was sentenced with inciting violence, rather than nasty comments. The medium she used to incite violence was a comment on a website. But she still incited violence, and was charged accordingly.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Except, in some countries, it is a crime. Why do you think it's not one? Are you familiar with UK law? In Germany there are even stricter laws. Insulting someone is a crime, even if the things you say are factually true. And then you have repressive dictatorships, like the UAE, USA and China, where you can't disagree with the government on anything. It's definitely a crime there, to say the president looks like Winnie the Pooh.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        I am familiar with the UK law, and it has been a crime for decades. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I am sorry to disappoint you, but posting nasty comments is a crime in the UK under the 2003 Communications Act, which means it has been a crime for decades. Section 127(1) makes it an offence to: "Send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is a - (a) grossly offensive, (b) indecent, obscene, or menacing, or (c) false, known to be false, for causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety." Section 127(2) adds that: "A person is also guilty of an offence if they cause a message or other matter to be sent that is similarly offensive or menancing. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
alexey-salmin 1y ago
> 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. I googled Lucy Connolly out of curiosity. It indeed appears that she got 31 month of jail for a single tweet? You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"?
- basisword 1y ago
  The fact it was a "single tweet" is completely irrelevant. It's the content of the tweet which is relevant.
- tolien 1y ago
  > You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previously admitted intending to stir up racial hatred. If you plead guilty to a charge, there's not much defense left. The offence she admitted to doesn't even take account of whether it's committed online - it's law that was passed in 1986. An aggravating factor that led to the sentence she got was that she had in fact posted multiple times in the same sort of way. Details of her appealing the sentence as excessive, rejected by the appeals court https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...
  - alexey-salmin 1y ago
    So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not, or whether they agree or disagree with her political position.
Arch-TK 1y ago
Fortunately in the UK it is illegal to lie on the internet...
- johnisgood 1y ago
  And I have mentioned the 2003 Communications Act. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764
miohtama 1y ago
Online Communication Offence Arrests Volume 847: debated on Thursday 17 July 2025 > The tendency to police—literally—what people are saying has been encouraged and enabled by not just this Government but their predecessors. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Sections 1 and 127, give the police the power to arrest individuals for what they say online. On average, 30 people are arrested daily. In 2014, under the coalition Government, something called non-crime hate incidents were introduced—words uttered that are not yet criminal in themselves but which the police should officially record none the less and hold against people. Since 2014, more than 133,000 such incidents have been recorded; that is more than 13,000 each year. Some of those who have had their names recorded in police files are children whose words were taken down when they were below the age of criminal responsibility and may be held against them for the rest of their lives. The innocence of youth has been replaced with the presumption of guilt. 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...

by tolien 1y ago

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
      It's slightly more nuanced. Attacking people for protected characteristics such as race, religion, disability, gender, sexuality, is also an offence. You can be a cunt all you want, just make sure you're being nasty about them as a person not their religion or race or whatever group you might feel they belong to All cases I've seen have been cut and dry in this regard. Racist or homophobic usually.
      - tolien 1y ago
        Indeed, I didn't mean to imply those three were the only categories of things within "online posts"! Rather, that it's disingenous to lump all of that under one umbrella and suggest great swathes of people are being arrested for a tweet.
  - OtherShrezzing 1y ago
    I think Connelly was sentenced with inciting violence, rather than nasty comments. The medium she used to incite violence was a comment on a website. But she still incited violence, and was charged accordingly.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Except, in some countries, it is a crime. Why do you think it's not one? Are you familiar with UK law? In Germany there are even stricter laws. Insulting someone is a crime, even if the things you say are factually true. And then you have repressive dictatorships, like the UAE, USA and China, where you can't disagree with the government on anything. It's definitely a crime there, to say the president looks like Winnie the Pooh.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I am familiar with the UK law, and it has been a crime for decades. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I am sorry to disappoint you, but posting nasty comments is a crime in the UK under the 2003 Communications Act, which means it has been a crime for decades. Section 127(1) makes it an offence to: "Send by means of a public electronic communications network a message that is a - (a) grossly offensive, (b) indecent, obscene, or menacing, or (c) false, known to be false, for causing annoyance, inconvenience, or needless anxiety." Section 127(2) adds that: "A person is also guilty of an offence if they cause a message or other matter to be sent that is similarly offensive or menancing. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

alexey-salmin 1y ago

> 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. I googled Lucy Connolly out of curiosity. It indeed appears that she got 31 month of jail for a single tweet? You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"?

basisword 1y ago
The fact it was a "single tweet" is completely irrelevant. It's the content of the tweet which is relevant.
tolien 1y ago
> You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previously admitted intending to stir up racial hatred. If you plead guilty to a charge, there's not much defense left. The offence she admitted to doesn't even take account of whether it's committed online - it's law that was passed in 1986. An aggravating factor that led to the sentence she got was that she had in fact posted multiple times in the same sort of way. Details of her appealing the sentence as excessive, rejected by the appeals court https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not, or whether they agree or disagree with her political position.

Arch-TK 1y ago

Fortunately in the UK it is illegal to lie on the internet...

johnisgood 1y ago
And I have mentioned the 2003 Communications Act. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44641764

miohtama 1y ago

Online Communication Offence Arrests Volume 847: debated on Thursday 17 July 2025 > The tendency to police—literally—what people are saying has been encouraged and enabled by not just this Government but their predecessors. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Sections 1 and 127, give the police the power to arrest individuals for what they say online. On average, 30 people are arrested daily. In 2014, under the coalition Government, something called non-crime hate incidents were introduced—words uttered that are not yet criminal in themselves but which the police should officially record none the less and hold against people. Since 2014, more than 133,000 such incidents have been recorded; that is more than 13,000 each year. Some of those who have had their names recorded in police files are children whose words were taken down when they were below the age of criminal responsibility and may be held against them for the rest of their lives. The innocence of youth has been replaced with the presumption of guilt. 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...