5 ms·

For the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id.

by ap99 1y ago

For the Americans looking at this act, you're maybe putting it in the context of American politics and thinking who cares if the porn sites have my face or id. But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else.

JFingleton 1y ago
Here is more information about the arrests that are currently taking place: https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/ https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...
- jphoward 1y ago
  Why does that link say the current director of public prosecutions is Sir Kier Starmer? It's hard to take it seriously.
  - jjbinx007 1y ago
    It doesn't say he's currently the DPP. It says: "As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued..." Past tense.
toyg 1y ago
Britain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- polshaw 1y ago
  So there is not a magical space where the law does not apply? that is what you call hypocritical.
  - toyg 1y ago
    The hypocrisy is in touting that there is such a space, in order to gain points for freedom in international relations, then conveniently discard the pretense whenever it suits the authority.
- vidarh 1y ago
  Speaker's Corner has never been a place "were police will tolerate any sort of speech". It's a place where anyone can speak. You're still subjected to exactly the same legal restrictions on the speech itself as anywhere else in public, and that's nothing new.
  - toyg 1y ago
    It's not new, no - the position has been the same since at least the XIX century, when Britain gave asylum to European insurrectionalists. But it's always been fundamentally hypocritical: being "free" to complete a sentence before you go to prison is not meaningfully different from getting interrupted before you go to prison.
    - vidarh 1y ago
      I wish it wasn't like that, but the position isn't hypocritical: You're free to complete saying something unlawful because until you've said something unlawful you haven't committed a crime, but furthermore, English law on what is "unlawful" to say or do is also complicated in that many things are okay to say or do in contexts where they will not cause offence but becomes illegal if done in front of the "wrong" people or with the "wrong" intent. As such, until there has been a complaint there often will not be a basis for saying that something was unlawful to say unless it is really far over the line. If you were to start shouting something blatantly illegal such as chanting support for a proscribed organisation, you must certainly would not find police standing there and waiting unless they deemed it likely to be more disruptive to peace and order to stop you right away. This expends past speech - e.g. public nudity is in the same category that isn't illegal in itself but where intent or the effect on others can make it unlawful - and this notion on relying on intent and whether or not someone present took offense rather than clearly delineating where the boundary is, is a challenge with English law because of the huge gray areas it creates. [used "English law" as shorthand here - really it is the law of England & Wales, and much of it will be the same in Scotland, but Scotland does have a separate legal system, hence why it isn't "UK law"]
matthewmacleod 1y ago
I'm sure you realise this, but you are of course massively and deliberately oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. Like… it's okay to complain about bad legislation without misrepresenting it. It's bad enough that you don't need to make shit up about it.
_joel 1y ago
Please cite examples of someone being jailed for offending someone (that doesn't include incitement to violence).
- liveoneggs 1y ago
  Held for eight hours + other abuse: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-o...
  - _joel 1y ago
    So, not jailed then. No more examples of people actually been sent to prison?
esskay 1y ago
> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else. It's hard to take this seriously, especially when if I ask for citations it'll likely be a couple of extremely obscure cases where the details are being conveniently glossed over.
- abtinf 1y ago
  Wikipedia literally has an extended section on this issue. No one is going to give you citations for something trivially googlable. > In September 2022, a British woman was arrested and charged for holding up an "abolish monarchy" sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh. Similar arrests throughout the country around this period over anti-monarchy republican sentiment have alarmed human rights groups.
  - crtasm 1y ago
    That's bad, but it is not an example of someone going to jail.
- gadders 1y ago
  You can get arrested for offending people in Whatsapp group chats: https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti-pleads-guilty-to-sharing-offensive-video-of-effigy-on-fire-12594274 https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti...
- liveoneggs 1y ago
  30 arrests per day and increasing https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
  - esskay 1y ago
    Arrests != Jail. Read the original comment.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else. actually no. its grossly offensive. Not someone finding it offense. And normally its a legal garnish, for something like trying to get someone else killed or injured via text. However you can be arrested for organising a protest that someone might reasonably find annoying. That has much less legal oversight.
liveoneggs 1y ago
All sides of all governments desperately want to install every oppressive thought-policing and free-speech limiting technology possible. They lust after China's "social credit score" and will do anything to control you.

by ap99 1y ago

JFingleton 1y ago

Here is more information about the arrests that are currently taking place: https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/ https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for...

jphoward 1y ago
Why does that link say the current director of public prosecutions is Sir Kier Starmer? It's hard to take it seriously.
- jjbinx007 1y ago
  It doesn't say he's currently the DPP. It says: "As director of public prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer issued..." Past tense.

toyg 1y ago

Britain has always been very hypocritical about freedom of speech. Take for example "Speaker's Corner", an area of Hyde Park were police will tolerate any sort of speech - except that, if there are complaints and the speech is considered potentially unlawful, they will arrest the speaker right after he's done speaking.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
polshaw 1y ago
So there is not a magical space where the law does not apply? that is what you call hypocritical.
- toyg 1y ago
  The hypocrisy is in touting that there is such a space, in order to gain points for freedom in international relations, then conveniently discard the pretense whenever it suits the authority.
vidarh 1y ago
Speaker's Corner has never been a place "were police will tolerate any sort of speech". It's a place where anyone can speak. You're still subjected to exactly the same legal restrictions on the speech itself as anywhere else in public, and that's nothing new.
- toyg 1y ago
  It's not new, no - the position has been the same since at least the XIX century, when Britain gave asylum to European insurrectionalists. But it's always been fundamentally hypocritical: being "free" to complete a sentence before you go to prison is not meaningfully different from getting interrupted before you go to prison.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    I wish it wasn't like that, but the position isn't hypocritical: You're free to complete saying something unlawful because until you've said something unlawful you haven't committed a crime, but furthermore, English law on what is "unlawful" to say or do is also complicated in that many things are okay to say or do in contexts where they will not cause offence but becomes illegal if done in front of the "wrong" people or with the "wrong" intent. As such, until there has been a complaint there often will not be a basis for saying that something was unlawful to say unless it is really far over the line. If you were to start shouting something blatantly illegal such as chanting support for a proscribed organisation, you must certainly would not find police standing there and waiting unless they deemed it likely to be more disruptive to peace and order to stop you right away. This expends past speech - e.g. public nudity is in the same category that isn't illegal in itself but where intent or the effect on others can make it unlawful - and this notion on relying on intent and whether or not someone present took offense rather than clearly delineating where the boundary is, is a challenge with English law because of the huge gray areas it creates. [used "English law" as shorthand here - really it is the law of England & Wales, and much of it will be the same in Scotland, but Scotland does have a separate legal system, hence why it isn't "UK law"]

matthewmacleod 1y ago

I'm sure you realise this, but you are of course massively and deliberately oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. Like… it's okay to complain about bad legislation without misrepresenting it. It's bad enough that you don't need to make shit up about it.

_joel 1y ago

Please cite examples of someone being jailed for offending someone (that doesn't include incitement to violence).

liveoneggs 1y ago
Held for eight hours + other abuse: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-o...
- _joel 1y ago
  So, not jailed then. No more examples of people actually been sent to prison?

esskay 1y ago

> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else. It's hard to take this seriously, especially when if I ask for citations it'll likely be a couple of extremely obscure cases where the details are being conveniently glossed over.

abtinf 1y ago
Wikipedia literally has an extended section on this issue. No one is going to give you citations for something trivially googlable. > In September 2022, a British woman was arrested and charged for holding up an "abolish monarchy" sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh. Similar arrests throughout the country around this period over anti-monarchy republican sentiment have alarmed human rights groups.
- crtasm 1y ago
  That's bad, but it is not an example of someone going to jail.
gadders 1y ago
You can get arrested for offending people in Whatsapp group chats: https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti-pleads-guilty-to-sharing-offensive-video-of-effigy-on-fire-12594274 https://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-tower-model-paul-busetti...
liveoneggs 1y ago
30 arrests per day and increasing https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
- esskay 1y ago
  Arrests != Jail. Read the original comment.

KaiserPro 1y ago

> But in the UK you can be arrested and jailed for saying something online that offends someone else. actually no. its grossly offensive. Not someone finding it offense. And normally its a legal garnish, for something like trying to get someone else killed or injured via text. However you can be arrested for organising a protest that someone might reasonably find annoying. That has much less legal oversight.

liveoneggs 1y ago

All sides of all governments desperately want to install every oppressive thought-policing and free-speech limiting technology possible. They lust after China's "social credit score" and will do anything to control you.