7 ms·

After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free spe

After seeing NUMEROUS video of UK police showing up at doorsteps like the gestapo, arresting or citing or intimidating people who are simply practicing free speech, I don’t think anyone should support the government with a pathway to de-anonymize the web. Even if you support the current government, such powers will be used against you at some point.

n4r9 1y ago
I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".
- flir 1y ago
  Look, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
- kimixa 1y ago
  The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied. But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make. Not a great site but gives the gist: https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-officers-investigating-social-media-use-2133274 https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Might not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like" Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation. There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - n4r9 1y ago
    In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
    - beeflet 1y ago
      Good thinking, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to extreme opinions. Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        I'm open to a broad range of opinions. I'm less open to arguments hinging on watching a video. Especially if they won't even link to one.
- cortic 1y ago
  It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    > It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
    - oncallthrow 1y ago
      The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
      - teamonkey 1y ago
        [flagged]
        oncallthrow 1y ago
        > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
- oncallthrow 1y ago
  In many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement. But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
  - kimixa 1y ago
    > But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast. Care to name some? The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet. In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
    - oncallthrow 1y ago
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556?app-referrer=deep-linkm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556... is one example of a successful prosecution. There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        Linehan was arrested for inciting violence. He encouraged people to punch trans women.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        wastle 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - jdietrich 1y ago
raesene9 1y ago
If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hundreds-arrested-for-alleged-palestine-action-support-in-limbo-if-challenge-to-ban-is-blocked-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...). Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"
- ChocolateGod 1y ago
  They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
  - raesene9 1y ago
    Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech. The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
    - Barrin92 1y ago
      If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings) An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.
mhh__ 1y ago
Tweets - prison Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended sentence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in the country after said prison sentence
- Stevvo 1y ago
  Any young man would probably get an attempted murder charge for that. Very incendiary ruling; sort of thing that could start a riot.
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    Policing by consent admits an arbitrage whereby one simply refuses Anarchotyranny
userbinator 1y ago
AIUI "practicing free speech" is mainly a US thing that doesn't map cleanly to other countries.
- beeflet 1y ago
  It should
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Why?
FridayoLeary 1y ago
What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.

n4r9 1y ago

I wonder how much you're loading into "simply practicing free speech".

flir 1y ago
Look, I didn't mean someone should actually burn down the building with the occupants still inside. It was satire!
kimixa 1y ago
The last one that made the rounds here ended up being carefully cut to give a specific impression (and the initial presented commentary straight up lies), and when the "full story" came out it turned out to be a lot less "simply practicing free speech" than implied. But retractions never get the same visibility, and it's already made the impression they wanted the post to make. Not a great site but gives the gist: https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-officers-investigating-social-media-use-2133274 https://www.newsweek.com/british-police-explain-video-office...
- n4r9 1y ago
  Might not be what you're referring to, but: a couple of months ago a user posted this comment [0] claiming the linked video showed police offices arresting and threatening to jail an old grandmother in the middle of the night, simply for "liking facebook posts the gov doesn’t like" Needless to say there were no arrests, no jail time, not even threats of jail time, it was 1:30pm, the woman was 54 years old, and she had posted comments calling for a councillor's resignation. There's an argument in there about whether councillors have a bit too much influence on local police behaviour. But it gets drowned out by hyperbole, embellishment, and an over-eagerness to link it all up to a nation-wide conspiracy. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44593022
SilverElfin 1y ago
Go watch the videos and look up what was said. Most of them are clearly normal non violent free speech, but just politically not aligned to the current government’s platform. I’m not saying all are just doing free speech but am confident about most.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- n4r9 1y ago
  In my experience, when someone has an extreme opinion and says "just watch this video", it's largely a waste of time. Video is too easily game-able as a medium.
  - beeflet 1y ago
    Good thinking, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to extreme opinions. Come to think of it, when are we going to ban dangerous assault thoughts? Not everyone has a mind big enough for radical ideas of that caliber.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      I'm open to a broad range of opinions. I'm less open to arguments hinging on watching a video. Especially if they won't even link to one.
cortic 1y ago
It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). The Online Safety Act and Hate Crime Provision have extended these somewhat into the realms of 1984. But the police do tend to use them sparingly.
- teamonkey 1y ago
  > It is a criminal offense in the UK to use insulting words in public, or to send any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive (whether any one does or not is irreverent). This is categorically untrue.
  - oncallthrow 1y ago
    The latter part at least is true. Sending "grossly offensive" messages is illegal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Section 127: > a person is guilty of an offence if he— > (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or > (b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent. I suspect the former is also true, but am not well-read in that area
    - teamonkey 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - oncallthrow 1y ago
        > “Grossly offensive” is absolutely not the same thing as “any message online that anyone could find insulting or offensive”. There is no statutory definition of “grossly”, so in effect it is the same. There is prior art for it being interpreted incredibly widely. Not to mention the other incredibly vague adjectives in the law. > Correct https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html “Don’t be snarky”.
oncallthrow 1y ago
In many cases the “free speech” genuinely is racial hatred bordering on incitement. But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast.
- kimixa 1y ago
  > But on the other hand there genuinely have been many people arrested (and in some cases convicted) under these laws for statements that are shockingly milquetoast. Care to name some? The vast majority of cases I've looked into end up being a lot more than the initially presented "They Were Arrested For Saying Bad Words On The Internet!" story pushed on the internet. In fact, I can't remember a single one where there wasn't a lot more, but that's not really more than anecdote.
  - oncallthrow 1y ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556?app-referrer=deep-linkm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46959556... is one example of a successful prosecution. There are many more cases of harassment by the police or arrests, the most recent example that comes to mind being Graham Linehan. These are clearly not as bad as prosecutions, but still create a chilling effect.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Linehan was arrested for inciting violence. He encouraged people to punch trans women.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - wastle 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - jdietrich 1y ago

raesene9 1y ago

If you're looking for evidence of the UK gov's authoritarian tendencies, you don't need to go looking at videos on Youtube, just look at the number of arrests of peaceful protestors who were given charges under terrorism legislation for holding up banners or wearing T-Shirts mentioning "Palestine Action" (ref https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hundreds-arrested-for-alleged-palestine-action-support-in-limbo-if-challenge-to-ban-is-blocked-court-told https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/25/fate-of-hund...). Or indeed in one notable case the person who was arrested for a T-Shirt about "Plasticine action"

ChocolateGod 1y ago
They're supporting a specific group that went into a military base and damaged military equipment (that was irrelevant to palestine/israel), those people going out with those T-Shirts know exactly why the group was proscribed and are seeking to be arrested, why are we shocked they got arrested, they wanted it.
- raesene9 1y ago
  Put it this way, the UK managed to get through the troubles, which had a lot of events far more serious than what Palestine action have done, without needing this level of policing of free speech. The point I was making is that successive UK gov's are tending towards authoritarianism, the current one included.
  - Barrin92 1y ago
    If you're trying to convince Brits not to enact these policies "you guys made it through The Troubles" is a really bad argument unless you're very unfamiliar with the body count and terror and the public perception of that period in British history. (it included some fifty thousand casualties and sixteen thousand bombings) An advocate of these policies would quite literally argue that not getting into something like The Troubles is the point and a lot of people would agree if that was what is on the horizon.

mhh__ 1y ago

Tweets - prison Assaulting and trying to stab a man burning a Quran - Suspended sentence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o watch the video and tell me this man should be A) not in prison and B) in the country after said prison sentence

Stevvo 1y ago
Any young man would probably get an attempted murder charge for that. Very incendiary ruling; sort of thing that could start a riot.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  Policing by consent admits an arbitrage whereby one simply refuses Anarchotyranny

userbinator 1y ago

AIUI "practicing free speech" is mainly a US thing that doesn't map cleanly to other countries.

beeflet 1y ago
It should
- n4r9 1y ago
  Why?

FridayoLeary 1y ago

What is actually going on with that? It feels like over the last 2 years the British police have decided to see what it's like being the stasi. Most of the msm are faithfully avoiding mentioning how authoritarian the police have become. The odd thing is they are not even necessarily propping up a political regime, although again it feels like they are getting some of their instructions directly from kier starmers mind, but they are arresting people for being mean on twitter. It's really odd and no matter what side of the political divide you are on you should be disturbed.