7 ms·

> While figures show that the total number of arrests for online posts fell to 9,700 last year, down from a record 13,800 in 2023... https://freespeechunion.or

by piker 11mo ago

> While figures show that the total number of arrests for online posts fell to 9,700 last year, down from a record 13,800 in 2023... https://freespeechunion.org/daily-mail-investigation-exposes-number-of-people-arrested-for-offensive-social-media-posts/?v=7885444af42e https://freespeechunion.org/daily-mail-investigation-exposes...

cyanydeez 11mo ago
[flagged]
- stickfigure 11mo ago
  That's not reassuring in the slightest.
  - OJFord 11mo ago
    Not in the slightest?
    - junon 11mo ago
      No.
  - cyanydeez 11mo ago
    Is it reassuring that some of the speech is a call to kill other people both online and in the strwets? Do you even descern any difference?
- ethanwillis 11mo ago
  Yes, let me just arrest you over some text and hold you for a couple of days. Surely no problem! But being serious if anything this is worse than no imprisonment. Why are they arresting so many people they don't have any grounds to jail longer term?
  - iamacyborg 11mo ago
    Days? > The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you. > They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, such as murder. > You can be held without charge for up to 14 days if you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act. https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-...
    - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
      but then once charged you can be held for years on remand [0], there is no limit to how long the court can take to actually getting around to holding your trial. The law says now 8 months, but (as this site says) people are held for years. [0] https://legalknowledgebase.com/how-long-can-someone-be-held-on-remand-for-uk https://legalknowledgebase.com/how-long-can-someone-be-held-...
      - cyanydeez 11mo ago
        Yeah, and once your speech incites people to set a hotel full of people on fire, some of them can die forever! It really makes you think.
- himinlomax 11mo ago
  A distinction without a difference.
- ribosometronome 11mo ago
  The parent comment specifically quoted both, making a citation for arrests fairly topical. >Keep in mind the UK already arrests and imprisons vast numbers of people for speech offences >>I think you’ve been spending too much time on Twitter Did you miss it or are we moving the goalposts for some reason?
  - y0dogBut 11mo ago
    [dead]
- oytis 11mo ago
  People do get imprisoned for "terrorist speech" to my best knowledge. Up to 15 years prison time if I understand the law correctly
  - iamacyborg 11mo ago
    You do realise what terrorist speech entails though, right?
    - vhcr 11mo ago
      https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine-action-ban-disturbing-misuse-uk-counter-terrorism-legislation https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine...
    - oytis 11mo ago
      Well, I know that it doesn't entail any terrorist actions that would justify the gravity of the punishment
- hayd 11mo ago
  the process is the punishment
- marcus_holmes 11mo ago
  see [0] the original Palestine Action protestors, who were arrested in 2024 and are not likely to see trial until at the best May 2026, and some sources are saying January 2027. They are being kept in remand, with no possibility of release, for at least two years, without being convicted of a crime. This is legal because Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation and the UK passed some farcical laws aimed at preventing terrorism, that everyone pointed out at the time would be used against non-terrorists eventually. They are using this same law to arrest hundreds of people for doing nothing more than holding a placard. In the UK, if the government can make a case that you are a terrorist, then arrest is absolutely the same as imprisons. And similar farcical laws are operating in most Western democracies. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq3g9g4eyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq3g9g4eyo
omh 11mo ago
This is based on statistics for the Malicious Communications Act. That includes people sending, for example, threatening messages to an ex partner. Not all of them are online posts, in fact probably a minority
- piker 11mo ago
  That's what would be reasonably expected, but it's not backed up by the information. > The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections. [emphasis added] 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... (https://archive.is/kC5x2#selection-3325.0-3325.335 https://archive.is/kC5x2#selection-3325.0-3325.335)
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - omh 11mo ago
    Thanks. That wasn't clear from the Mail article above. But the Times article also says: > 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. So I think the categorisation is a mess, and probably not even consistent across forces
    - hopelite 11mo ago
      I have to say, it is a bit astonishing how much you are in a kind of bargaining stage of trying to rationalize how what is happening, is not actually happening, all while the trap doors are closing all around you even though very slowly. Why do you think that is? It is not just a British thing, because this ruling class tyranny is descending all across the western world, regardless of whether it is particularly egregious in the UK. Or should we maybe just start calling it Airstrip One at this point, the AO?
cj 11mo ago
I thought Daily Mail was close to tabloid status (or a bit above). Aren’t they banned from being a citation on Wikipedia?
- stooart 11mo ago
  The Daily Mail is definitely tabloid, although some might describe it as a comic. There are reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow it as a source.
  - slowmovintarget 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
  - reliabilityguy 11mo ago
    > There are reasons why Wikipedia Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source [0]. [0] https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia
- 4bpp 11mo ago
  It is by no means a good publication, but at the same time being accepted as a citation on Wikipedia or not is not necessarily a particularly objective measure of quality. I recommend reading https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... for the critical perspective on Wikipedia's integrity in this regard.
- Digit-Al 11mo ago
  The Daily Mail is frequently referred to as either 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (referring to the fact they supported Oswald Mosley and his fascist ideals, and remain very right wing). It is not a quality publication by any means.
  - jjgreen 11mo ago
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

by piker 11mo ago

cyanydeez 11mo ago

[flagged]

stickfigure 11mo ago
That's not reassuring in the slightest.
- OJFord 11mo ago
  Not in the slightest?
  - junon 11mo ago
    No.
- cyanydeez 11mo ago
  Is it reassuring that some of the speech is a call to kill other people both online and in the strwets? Do you even descern any difference?
ethanwillis 11mo ago
Yes, let me just arrest you over some text and hold you for a couple of days. Surely no problem! But being serious if anything this is worse than no imprisonment. Why are they arresting so many people they don't have any grounds to jail longer term?
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  Days? > The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you. > They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, such as murder. > You can be held without charge for up to 14 days if you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act. https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-...
  - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
    but then once charged you can be held for years on remand [0], there is no limit to how long the court can take to actually getting around to holding your trial. The law says now 8 months, but (as this site says) people are held for years. [0] https://legalknowledgebase.com/how-long-can-someone-be-held-on-remand-for-uk https://legalknowledgebase.com/how-long-can-someone-be-held-...
    - cyanydeez 11mo ago
      Yeah, and once your speech incites people to set a hotel full of people on fire, some of them can die forever! It really makes you think.
himinlomax 11mo ago
A distinction without a difference.
ribosometronome 11mo ago
The parent comment specifically quoted both, making a citation for arrests fairly topical. >Keep in mind the UK already arrests and imprisons vast numbers of people for speech offences >>I think you’ve been spending too much time on Twitter Did you miss it or are we moving the goalposts for some reason?
- y0dogBut 11mo ago
  [dead]
oytis 11mo ago
People do get imprisoned for "terrorist speech" to my best knowledge. Up to 15 years prison time if I understand the law correctly
- iamacyborg 11mo ago
  You do realise what terrorist speech entails though, right?
  - vhcr 11mo ago
    https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine-action-ban-disturbing-misuse-uk-counter-terrorism-legislation https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/uk-palestine...
  - oytis 11mo ago
    Well, I know that it doesn't entail any terrorist actions that would justify the gravity of the punishment
hayd 11mo ago
the process is the punishment
marcus_holmes 11mo ago
see [0] the original Palestine Action protestors, who were arrested in 2024 and are not likely to see trial until at the best May 2026, and some sources are saying January 2027. They are being kept in remand, with no possibility of release, for at least two years, without being convicted of a crime. This is legal because Palestine Action is a terrorist organisation and the UK passed some farcical laws aimed at preventing terrorism, that everyone pointed out at the time would be used against non-terrorists eventually. They are using this same law to arrest hundreds of people for doing nothing more than holding a placard. In the UK, if the government can make a case that you are a terrorist, then arrest is absolutely the same as imprisons. And similar farcical laws are operating in most Western democracies. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq3g9g4eyo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxq3g9g4eyo

omh 11mo ago

This is based on statistics for the Malicious Communications Act. That includes people sending, for example, threatening messages to an ex partner. Not all of them are online posts, in fact probably a minority

piker 11mo ago
That's what would be reasonably expected, but it's not backed up by the information. > The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections. [emphasis added] 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... (https://archive.is/kC5x2#selection-3325.0-3325.335 https://archive.is/kC5x2#selection-3325.0-3325.335)
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- omh 11mo ago
  Thanks. That wasn't clear from the Mail article above. But the Times article also says: > 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. So I think the categorisation is a mess, and probably not even consistent across forces
  - hopelite 11mo ago
    I have to say, it is a bit astonishing how much you are in a kind of bargaining stage of trying to rationalize how what is happening, is not actually happening, all while the trap doors are closing all around you even though very slowly. Why do you think that is? It is not just a British thing, because this ruling class tyranny is descending all across the western world, regardless of whether it is particularly egregious in the UK. Or should we maybe just start calling it Airstrip One at this point, the AO?

cj 11mo ago

I thought Daily Mail was close to tabloid status (or a bit above). Aren’t they banned from being a citation on Wikipedia?

stooart 11mo ago
The Daily Mail is definitely tabloid, although some might describe it as a comic. There are reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow it as a source.
- slowmovintarget 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
- reliabilityguy 11mo ago
  > There are reasons why Wikipedia Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source [0]. [0] https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia https://en.ejo.ch/public-relations/manipulation-wikipedia
4bpp 11mo ago
It is by no means a good publication, but at the same time being accepted as a citation on Wikipedia or not is not necessarily a particularly objective measure of quality. I recommend reading https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... for the critical perspective on Wikipedia's integrity in this regard.
Digit-Al 11mo ago
The Daily Mail is frequently referred to as either 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (referring to the fact they supported Oswald Mosley and his fascist ideals, and remain very right wing). It is not a quality publication by any means.
- jjgreen 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]