UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts

gruntlabor said:
I hope not, but yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is both speech and criminal, as is conspiring to commit a crim
Click to expand...
gruntlabor said:
I hope not, but yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is both speech and criminal, as is conspiring to commit a crime.
Click to expand...
I think the actual rioters bear the lion's share blame for the riots. I did not hear of mass arrests from the rioting. In the UK, you can't turn over a rock without stumbling over three CCTV cameras. The rioters are the people, who acted- "yelled fire", and those are the people who should be prosecuted.

(That said I do think there is a link between the Jan 6th US riots and the UK riots, per online instigation, but that discussion is not for this type of forum.)
 

I am not sure how much authority the Police Commissioner in the U.K. has. I think what he is referring to is with all of the riots going on if anyone tells lies, or gives out misinformation to incite people to riot or start a mob going around the city doing destructive actions, they could be arrested and then ask the U.S. to extradite these people causing the calamity.

There is a whole list of complicated concerns that would need to be addressed before an extradition could happen. Obviously to most of us, the U.K. Police Commissioner doesn't have jurisdiction to make an arrest here in the U.S., but because we have a reciprocal agreement with the U.K. and the U.S. shares rights and agreements with one another, if I was a big name person like Musk and gave out misinformation that may start a riot, the U.K. could ask the U.S. to arrest me and extradite me to the U.K. for prosecution.

Of course, Musk could then fight the extradition, which would add lots of time before this issue could be settled. In fact, it could go on and on for who knows how long.

I doubt if this is a fight the U.K. PC would want to start. There would be a lot of costs involved by all parties in this action. Not that the rich couldn't afford to pay the expenses, but I have found that the rich do not like getting involved in these episodes that seem to never end. There is also a chance that the U.K. could start an international affair with the U.S. that neither party would want to be involved in.
 
HoneyNut said:
Very likely a person's opinion of not allowing incitement speech is colored by whether they are a member of a subgroup that is a victim of it.

Speech can be criminal in the US in these circumstances:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects free speech, but it also allows for limitations on certain categories of speech. These limitations include:​
  • Incitement: Speech that is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action". For example, a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building would be considered incitement.
  • Defamation
  • Fraud: Laws criminalize fraudulent statements, which are generally defined as false statements aimed at making others detrimentally rely on it. This includes false advertising, perjury, and falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
  • Obscenity
  • Child pornography
  • Fighting words
  • Threats
  • Commercial speech
Click to expand...

It is also generally illegal to burn the Flag, symbolic speech.
 
Lilac said:
Very sad when people aren't allowed to voice an opinion & even sadder when a bureaucrat(s) will be making the decision as to what it meant according to their standard/mindset/etc.

There is a difference between a direct threat calling for violence & someone giving their opinion of what is taking place during an event that doesn't include a threat of violence.

There will always be people who will be willing to twist &/or disregard facts along with wrongly perceiving or just not understanding what someone has written/spoke. Instead of taking time to figure it out, they jump quickly to a conclusion or decide to take advantage of it to further their side/cause/etc.
Click to expand...
HoneyNut said:
The link in the original post above was from a propaganda machine which itself does exactly what the UK law is against, so of course it wants to paint the law as bad.

This is what I can find about the new law in the UK:

LONDON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - The British government is considering changes to the Online Safety Act designed to regulate social media companies, following a week of racist rioting driven by false information online.​
...​
The act, passed in October but not set to be enforced until early next year, allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of global turnover if they are found in breach.​
At present, companies would only face a fine if they fail to police illegal content, such as incitments to violence or hate speech. Proposed changes could see Ofcom sanction companies if they allow "legal but harmful" content such as misinformation to flourish.​
...​
Britain's recently-elected Labour government inherited the legislation from the Conservatives, who spent many months tweaking the bill in an attempt to balance the right to free speech with concerns over online harms.​
On Friday, pollster YouGov published a survey of more than 2,000 adults, which found two thirds (66%) believe social media companies should be held responsible for posts inciting criminal behaviour.​
...​

CONTEXT​

Disorder spread across Britain last week, after widely-shared online posts wrongly identified the suspected killer of three young girls in a July 29 knife attack as a Muslim migrant.​
...​
As rioters clashed with police in some towns and cities, X owner Elon Musk also used his platform to share misleading information with his millions of followers, including one post suggesting civil war was "inevitable" in Britain.​
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson said there was "no justification" for such comments.​
....​
Click to expand...
I was referring to a bureaucrat who would be working & acting within a government entity, not a news organization.

There are a lot news agencies who are covering this & other stories around the globe. The original link was one among many reporting the news.

Just because a particular news agency may not follow one's viewpoint doesn't automatically make it a propaganda machine. With that thought or idea, every news agency can be labeled a propaganda machine. To get a clear idea of what is happening, a person needs to watch or read from more than one source & not always solely from those you agree with.

Silencing a side or people in general that you don't like is a slippery slope. We can all see what has happened to countries who have done this throughout history.
 
ChiroDoc said:
It saddens me to see England, traditionally a bastion of liberty, circling the drain.
And we in the U.S. are not very far behind...ā˜¹ļø
Click to expand...

We're not. We are struggling with extremism, and how to handle it. That's all. Most of the UK is the same old same old. But the squeaky wheel gets all the attention.

By my mind, the US are way ahead of us, sadly.
 
HoneyNut said:
The link in the original post above was from a propaganda machine which itself does exactly what the UK law is against, so of course it wants to paint the law as bad.

This is what I can find about the new law in the UK:

LONDON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - The British government is considering changes to the Online Safety Act designed to regulate social media companies, following a week of racist rioting driven by false information online.​
...​
The act, passed in October but not set to be enforced until early next year, allows the government to fine social media companies up to 10% of global turnover if they are found in breach.​
At present, companies would only face a fine if they fail to police illegal content, such as incitments to violence or hate speech. Proposed changes could see Ofcom sanction companies if they allow "legal but harmful" content such as misinformation to flourish.​
...​
Britain's recently-elected Labour government inherited the legislation from the Conservatives, who spent many months tweaking the bill in an attempt to balance the right to free speech with concerns over online harms.​
On Friday, pollster YouGov published a survey of more than 2,000 adults, which found two thirds (66%) believe social media companies should be held responsible for posts inciting criminal behaviour.​
...​

CONTEXT​

Disorder spread across Britain last week, after widely-shared online posts wrongly identified the suspected killer of three young girls in a July 29 knife attack as a Muslim migrant.​
...​
As rioters clashed with police in some towns and cities, X owner Elon Musk also used his platform to share misleading information with his millions of followers, including one post suggesting civil war was "inevitable" in Britain.​
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson said there was "no justification" for such comments.​
....​
Click to expand...
I think Musk is right, civil war IS inevitable if the new government ignore perfectly legitimate concerns. It was extremely unfortunate that the murders of three little girls was used to fuel racial riots, but this has been building up for some time.
 
Lavinia said:
I think Musk is right, civil war IS inevitable if the new government ignore perfectly legitimate concerns. It was extremely unfortunate that the murders of three little girls was used to fuel racial riots, but this has been building up for some time.
Click to expand...

People need to realize that it's okay to want something, but it's often impossible to deliver. Immigrants aren't allowed into the UK because the government don't care, but because of agreements we've signed. In every election there are winners and losers. The losers need to man-up and accept it.
 
Lavinia said:
Actually, it's usually the other way round....what happens in America is soon repeated in Britain.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, in general, 5 to 10 years behind. We're seeing the anti-government stuff happen here now, which is a five year (or so) window.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I'm not exactly is meant by "cracking down" on online posts. This police commissioner reminds me of the sherif in the 1960s complaining about "outside agitators" stirring up Civil Rights riots. The cause of the riots are the people doing the rioting. If it is their intention to topple a government by insurrection, that is a crime, and their actions are crimes, for which they could be held accountable.
But thoughts and speech are not criminal.
Click to expand...
Malice aforethought is. When speaking of murder. :unsure:
 
Grampa Don said:
Is there any written document in Britain that guarantees freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

#1 below says yes
#2 below says no

I don't even know why they bothered....


Human Rights Act 1998 from legislation.gov.uk

Article 10
Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 
GoneFishin said:
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts

'Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law' the police commissioner warned

UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: 'We'll come after you'

London's Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the U.K., but on American citizens as well.

"We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether youā€™re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you," Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.
Click to expand...

He knows squat about international extradition law.

Principle 1: Dual Criminality

Dual criminality refers to the requirement that the alleged crime for which extradition is sought must be considered an offense in both the requesting and the requested countries. This principle ensures that individuals are not extradited for actions that are not criminalized in the requested country.
 
I can foresee a test case here, under Australian law (& presumably British law) a person who urges the commission of an offence is guilty of the offence of incitement. It's apparent to me that recent riots in the UK are the result of misinformation or disinformation.
There's plenty of examples of 'agencies' extending their reach beyond their own international borders. Remember Julian Assange?
 
I've recently read in a couple places where the UK is very strict on internet postings and have prosecuted a large number of folks for improper language/threats/etc.

Is this true???
 
John cycling said:
When the Supreme Court ruled to allow American flag burning | Constitution Center
Click to expand...
I disagree and just because 5 Justices say itā€™s part of the 1st Amendment and is symbolic speech doesnā€™t necessarily mean those 5 people are right. Itā€™s their opinion. I look at the flag and I think about what it represents. Our flag has a long history of the men and women who gave their life defending that flag. The very least we should do is to honor them by making it illegal to burn the flag and the symbol it stands for.

They gave their life to preserve the flag and we have to allow anyone that gets a whim or upset over paying their taxes to burn it. Itā€™s almost like saying to those that gave their all to go jump in a river and donā€™t come up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top