GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

[Antoli]

Maybe the judicary system is entwined with politics in your country - not so here s o as I have pointed out before it is not political

Ive explained why I disagree and why I think the benifit is worth it.

no point going round in circles. You can have last word and consider yourself to have won the argument I was not having.-

I'm out unless anyone has anything new to say

Bye.

Speaking of circles, you’re the one who threw your hat into it, nobody dragged you in. You made a claim, I responded to it. That’s how discussion works. Calling it "going in circles" now doesn’t make your points any less unaddressed.

And for the record, simply declaring that your judiciary is magically insulated from politics is not an argument, it’s faith. If you think the benefit of giving the government power over speech outweighs the risks, fine, but don’t pretend that shutting down the conversation somehow settles the issue.

 

[gruntlabor]

"my freedom doesn't end where your fear begins"

"freedom is messy, deal with it"

Yes. The issue here is bigger than free speech.
The issue is socialism vs freedom.

 

[againstthegrain]

@Antoli thanks for taking the time to make your points, and I admire the skills you display in doing so.

 

[Brookswood]

Who the hell has a vote to condemn socialism? Do these people know the real problems real people are going through right now? Did they really spend time voting on a political philosophy? Is this a Monty Python skit?

It’s easier to fuss about releasing the files on a predator and condemning socialism, than tackling real problems like crime, fixing immigration, and reforming SS so it doesn’t run out of money. The real problems require hard work, leadership skills and courage to deal with them.

We elect these people. Either by voting for them, or worse by just not voting. This is my opinion. Others may disagree.

 

[rbtvgo]

Speaking of circles, you’re the one who threw your hat into it, nobody dragged you in. You made a claim, I responded to it. That’s how discussion works. Calling it "going in circles" now doesn’t make your points any less unaddressed.

And for the record, simply declaring that your judiciary is magically insulated from politics is not an argument, it’s faith. If you think the benefit of giving the government power over speech outweighs the risks, fine, but don’t pretend that shutting down the conversation somehow settles the issue.

You’re missing the distinction I actually made. A private forum can set whatever rules it wants, that’s not a "restriction on free speech," it’s simply property rights. Free speech limitations apply only when the government is the one doing the restricting. That’s Civics 101.

When you call a voluntary forum rule a "restriction on free speech," you’re stretching the term so far it stops meaning anything. If a restaurant has a "no shouting" rule, that isn’t authoritarianism, it's just the owner deciding how his own space is run.

Your broader point about society having norms is fine, but it has nothing to do with the legal concept of free speech. People can face social consequences, sure but that’s not the same thing as government power, which is the only thing with the force of law, courts, and punishment behind it.

You say you "can’t think of anything" you want to say that’s banned in the UK. That’s great, but irrelevant. Free speech protects the speech you hate, not just the speech you personally don’t mind. And the existence of laws that criminalize speech, however narrowly, is precisely why some of us insist on drawing a bright line between government authority and private rules.

So no, recognizing a forum owner’s right to run his/her property isn’t “accepting a restriction on free speech.” It’s recognizing the difference between a moderator deleting a post and a government prosecuting someone. Society may have standards, but only one of those has the power to arrest you. And that’s the one that matters.

I agree with what you say. I have re-read a few times to try an understand. Free speech is just that. The right to say what you want no matter how horrific it might be. You can then listen or turn it off. That is your right. Any attempt to control speech is an impeachment on your rights. Plain and very simple.
Asking the Gov to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable is at most, an exercise in faith that your government is capable of making those kinds of decisions. I, for one do not believe that those elected have that kind of wisdom. I believe that some, try but others just pander to those who elected them. In other words they can't be trusted.
So my faith in Gov is tempered by my understanding of who these people are and why they are there. Elections govern the selections of course, but were they elected because they understand my issues or the majority of others who had different issues. In which case, my issues were not addressed. So my faith, going forward is tempered by understanding that they really don't understand my concerns.

My whole point being that faith in your gov is not the same as faith in God. Yet I hear so much about faith in government.
Human beings, such as yourself, (elected officials) will make wise decisions and put in force laws and restrictions that will make your circumstances more comfortable..;;.................................................sorry but I don't agree.

 

[Irishdude]

I thought this was a pretty balanced description of the issue in the UK. "Free speech" is interpreted differently in the US, the UK and Europe, so a lot of the discussion here is a comparison of apples and oranges.

Is free speech under threat in Britain?

I was surprised to read that 12000 people were arrested under the UK Communications act in 2023 alone.

 

[BJintheUK]

I'd like to make two points in this post if I may. The first concerns the post by Irishdude

Please note that I have added BOLD type where I think it's important
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Irishdude posted above, and in his posting he added a link to an article.

Is free speech under threat in Britain?

In the article there's the following sentences.

"Lucy Connolly was convicted for inciting racial hatred in 2024, because she tweeted after the Southport killings that people should set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. Both the conviction itself, and the length of the sentence (two years seven months) have been much debated."


Her tweet was in response to the killing of three young girls in Southport by a 17 year old black man with a machete. In the tweet she expressed her feelings quite forcefully.

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b*******... If that makes me racist, so be it.”

BUT, she'd actually written the following, and please notice the difference this places on the meaning of what was actually said by her.

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

The phrase "for all I care" means that she wasn't actually inciting anyone to do anything, but was merely expressing her own disgust at what had happened to the three murdered girls at what she understood at the time to be at the hands of an illegal immigrant asylum seeker.

As a result I think even the article got it wrong by saying she was inciting racial hatred.

Furthermore, she was badly advised by her legal team to plead guilty, when in fact she had not incited anyone to do anything. Moreover, the government was keen to make an example of someone, anyone, who spoke out about the killings because it was embarrassing to ** PM Kier Starmer because of his personal involvement. So the judge gaoled her for the maximum amount of time, rather than just telling her to apologise and not do it again.

** When Axel Rudakubana came to court it was established that he was born here in the UK, but was the son of Alphonse Rudakubana, a warlord from Rwanda who had been brought to the UK by none other than our current PM, Kier Starmer.

Incidentally, Lucy Connolly apologised and removed the offending tweet long before being arrested, and said she had acted on “false and malicious” information.' Indeed the information she had at the time indicated that the murderer was an illegal immigrant, but it turned out that he was in fact born in the UK to Rwandan parents. So was not an illegal immigrant at all, but a home grown terrorist, and the son of an imported warlord from the Rwandan genocide.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second is regarding the state of free speech here in the UK


2. In the town where I live (Borehamwood, Herts) the police have had to apologise to a couple who they arrested back at the start of this year (2025). The couple were arrested in front of their 3 year old daughter, and handcuffed, then led away by 6, yes 6 police officers, who arrested them early in the morning. They were then held for 11 hours before being released without charge.

The reason they were arrested? The father had sent a sarcastic email to the staff of the school where their 7 year old daughter was a special needs student. The staff had then called the police and the police had jumped in with both feet. arresting and interrogating the couple for the whole day.

The police have now not only apologised, but also given them £20k as a sweetener in the hope that it will make it less likely they'll be sued by the couple for wrongful arrest.

The stupid thing is that the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire went into a press conference and actually defended the actions of his officers. The man's a complete plonker, and should resign immediately for his total lack of understanding of the role of the police in the UK. They don't exist to intervene in the private (and therefore civil) disputes between a school and the parents of its pupils. Instead they should be out apprehending real criminals who rob or physically attack ordinary citizens.

However, such is the madness of Starmer's Britain right now, that the parents of a disabled girl aren't allowed to criticise in writing the school she attended, without being arrested and interrogated like vicious criminals.

The sooner we have a new general election in the UK the better!

 

[hollydolly]

I'd like to make two points in this post if I may. The first concerns the post by Irishdude

Please note that I have added BOLD type where I think it's important
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Irishdude posted above, and in his posting he added a link to an article.

Is free speech under threat in Britain?

In the article there's the following sentences.

"Lucy Connolly was convicted for inciting racial hatred in 2024, because she tweeted after the Southport killings that people should set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers. Both the conviction itself, and the length of the sentence (two years seven months) have been much debated."


Her tweet was in response to the killing of three young girls in Southport by a 17 year old black man with a machete. In the tweet she expressed her feelings quite forcefully.

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b*******... If that makes me racist, so be it.”

BUT, she'd actually written the following, and please notice the difference this places on the meaning of what was actually said by her.

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

The phrase "for all I care" means that she wasn't actually inciting anyone to do anything, but was merely expressing her own disgust at what had happened to the three murdered girls at what she understood at the time to be at the hands of an illegal immigrant asylum seeker.

As a result I think even the article got it wrong by saying she was inciting racial hatred.

Furthermore, she was badly advised by her legal team to plead guilty, when in fact she had not incited anyone to do anything. Moreover, the government was keen to make an example of someone, anyone, who spoke out about the killings because it was embarrassing to ** PM Kier Starmer because of his personal involvement. So the judge gaoled her for the maximum amount of time, rather than just telling her to apologise and not do it again.

** When Axel Rudakubana came to court it was established that he was born here in the UK, but was the son of Alphonse Rudakubana, a warlord from Rwanda who had been brought to the UK by none other than our current PM, Kier Starmer.

Incidentally, Lucy Connolly apologised and removed the offending tweet long before being arrested, and said she had acted on “false and malicious” information.' Indeed the information she had at the time indicated that the murderer was an illegal immigrant, but it turned out that he was in fact born in the UK to Rwandan parents. So was not an illegal immigrant at all, but a home grown terrorist, and the son of an imported warlord from the Rwandan genocide.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second is regarding the state of free speech here in the UK


2. In the town where I live (Borehamwood, Herts) the police have had to apologise to a couple who they arrested back at the start of this year (2025). The couple were arrested in front of their 3 year old daughter, and handcuffed, then led away by 6, yes 6 police officers, who arrested them early in the morning. They were then held for 11 hours before being released without charge.

The reason they were arrested? The father had sent a sarcastic email to the staff of the school where their 7 year old daughter was a special needs student. The staff had then called the police and the police had jumped in with both feet. arresting and interrogating the couple for the whole day.

The police have now not only apologised, but also given them £20k as a sweetener in the hope that it will make it less likely they'll be sued by the couple for wrongful arrest.

The stupid thing is that the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire went into a press conference and actually defended the actions of his officers. The man's a complete plonker, and should resign immediately for his total lack of understanding of the role of the police in the UK. They don't exist to intervene in the private (and therefore civil) disputes between a school and the parents of its pupils. Instead they should be out apprehending real criminals who rob or physically attack ordinary citizens.

However, such is the madness of Starmer's Britain right now, that the parents of a disabled girl aren't allowed to criticise in writing the school she attended, without being arrested and interrogated like vicious criminals.

The sooner we have a new general election in the UK the better!

actually , the parents had posted on a closed school parent whatsapp group, so it wasn't even directed at the head per se.....

I followed ths story very cosely in the media and on the Next door app...

It was the most appalling thing... 6 cops dragging them out of their house, not permitting them to comfort their screaming children .. over their critisism of the schooling in a closed whatsapp group... the person who should have been arrested was the headmaster/mistress who called the police... and still should be for wasting police time

 

[BJintheUK]

actually , the parents had posted on a closed school parent whatsapp group, so it wasn't even directed at the head per se.....

I followed ths story very cosely in the media and on the Next door app...

It was the most appalling thing... 6 cops dragging them out of their house, not permitting them to comfort their screaming children .. over their critisism of the schooling in a closed whatsapp group... the person who should have been arrested was the headmaster/mistress who called the police... and still should be for wasting police time

I totally agree!

 

[VaughanJB]

[Various Videos]

I'm sorry, which of these videos address someone being arrested for something the "government hates"?

For example, the second video. The guy was arrested was arrested for harassment and malicious communications. Harassment isn't only a thing if it happens face to face. It's 2025. The guy involved had been warned, but continued his actions. Of course, we're only getting his side of the story here. That said, it's clear from what he says that he was being antagonistic. He was questioned, and then released. They decided not to file formal charges.

Remember, this video does not present both sides of the case, it's clearly prejudiced toward the guy

The number of police officers is irrelevant.

The first video - same thing. Apparently people believe harassment only counts in face to face communication. They're wrong. Hate speech is also a thing. It's a shame people act badly online.

I could go over the others, but they're the same thing. The story on Graham Linehan is beyond ridiculous. It's clearly going for the drama angle. To claim freedom of speech is dead is such a ridiculous statement. At worst, we need to know that allegations of harassment via electronic means is not okay, and will be investigated. But this point hardly points to "free speech is dead". I mean, seriously. Talk about exaggeration.

I will also stress - nothing here relates to things the government hates. Instead, it's the LAW. Personally, I'm not for harassment. Are you?

 

[VaughanJB]

actually , the parents had posted on a closed school parent whatsapp group, so it wasn't even directed at the head per se.....

I followed ths story very cosely in the media and on the Next door app...

It was the most appalling thing... 6 cops dragging them out of their house, not permitting them to comfort their screaming children .. over their critisism of the schooling in a closed whatsapp group... the person who should have been arrested was the headmaster/mistress who called the police... and still should be for wasting police time

It was not at all appalling. It followed due process. I've not seen what was posted in the group (if you have a link I'd look at it). The story as presented is completely one-sided, shows none of the communications that took place, and only one communication from the school. In other words, we have very very few facts 5to work with. Instead, we have an emotional reaction to a story with a bias toward some old man who apparently isn't very polite in communication (along with his wife). That crossed the line and became an accusation of harassment.

 

[VaughanJB]

ps: My replies might be a little off, but I'm still recovering from my eye surgery and and I'm not seeing too well right now.

 

[Ted01]

I'm sorry, which of these videos address someone being arrested for something the "government hates"?

For example, the second video. The guy was arrested was arrested for harassment and malicious communications. Harassment isn't only a thing if it happens face to face. It's 2025. The guy involved had been warned, but continued his actions. Of course, we're only getting his side of the story here. That said, it's clear from what he says that he was being antagonistic. He was questioned, and then released. They decided not to file formal charges.

Remember, this video does not present both sides of the case, it's clearly prejudiced toward the guy

The number of police officers is irrelevant.

The first video - same thing. Apparently people believe harassment only counts in face to face communication. They're wrong. Hate speech is also a thing. It's a shame people act badly online.

I could go over the others, but they're the same thing. The story on Graham Linehan is beyond ridiculous. It's clearly going for the drama angle. To claim freedom of speech is dead is such a ridiculous statement. At worst, we need to know that allegations of harassment via electronic means is not okay, and will be investigated. But this point hardly points to "free speech is dead". I mean, seriously. Talk about exaggeration.

I will also stress - nothing here relates to things the government hates. Instead, it's the LAW. Personally, I'm not for harassment. Are you?

I'm placing you under arrest for speaking the truth...

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep demanding “examples,” but you’re missing the structure of the argument. The issue isn’t whether you personally approve of each prosecution, the issue is whether the government has the power to criminalize speech at all. That power exists in the UK. It has been used. And once a government has that authority, good intentions stop being a safeguard.

You're right, because I don't understand your argument. Our government introduces, debates, and votes on the laws in our country. There are many examples where speech is criminalized: threats of murder or violence, harassment, etc. We elect the government, and they name the people who introduce and vote in favor of a law change or introduction.

The laws around harassment online are not new, and they are merely an extension of current laws that cover the same things. It's simply an update to cover the internet age. I don't understand why people think they can say or do anything they want online, and should be impervious to the l.aw.

You say you "don’t see a slippery slope." That’s exactly how slippery slopes work: people don’t see them until they’ve already slid down one.
Your comfort with the current laws doesn’t make them stable, doesn’t make them safe, and certainly doesn’t eliminate the risk. It just means you’re willing to trust the state to keep drawing the lines in a way you personally approve of. That’s not a principle, that’s a preference.

I’m not expecting to change your mind. You’ve made it clear you’re choosing reassurance over history. But don’t confuse that for a rebuttal.

Not really. I just think there is a line, and if the line is crossed there should be consequences. Have you any idea of the nasty discourse that happens every single minute of the day online? People can do as they please, and are free from prosecution. However, there is a line. The news stories presented were really really poor journalism. I'm surprised people don't ask to know all the details before going off in declaring the end of free speech.

 

[VaughanJB]

I'm placing you under arrest for speaking the truth...

It's a fair cop, guv.

Honestly, I sense that those complaining are mainly anti-government anyway. Anything the government does will be criticized, and horribly researched and written "journalism" is acceptable as proof of over-reach.

I know that driving over the speed limit could well get me arrested. I don't moan about it. Perhaps people need to be more aware that online communication also has limits.

 

[Antoli]

You're right, because I don't understand your argument. Our government introduces, debates, and votes on the laws in our country. There are many examples where speech is criminalized: threats of murder or violence, harassment, etc. We elect the government, and they name the people who introduce and vote in favor of a law change or introduction.

The laws around harassment online are not new, and they are merely an extension of current laws that cover the same things. It's simply an update to cover the internet age. I don't understand why people think they can say or do anything they want online, and should be impervious to the l.aw.



Not really. I just think there is a line, and if the line is crossed there should be consequences. Have you any idea of the nasty discourse that happens every single minute of the day online? People can do as they please, and are free from prosecution. However, there is a line. The news stories presented were really really poor journalism. I'm surprised people don't ask to know all the details before going off in declaring the end of free speech.

You keep repeating that "there’s a line" but that’s the entire point of the argument, who draws that line, and what limits stop the state from moving it whenever it wants?

You’re treating the existence of democratic procedures as if they were a safeguard against abuse. They aren’t. Every country that has ever censored speech also "debated, introduced, and voted" on those laws. The process doesn’t make the outcome any less dangerous.

You list threats and harassment, but those were already illegal without needing new speech controls. The concern isn’t about punishing actual crimes. It’s about criminalizing expression that government officials subjectively decide crosses a shifting boundary. That’s why examples matter, they show how broad, vague laws end up being stretched far beyond their stated purpose.

You keep saying you "just think there’s a line." That’s a preference, not a principle. A principle limits government power, a preference simply trusts the government not to overuse it. And history isn’t on the side of trust.

And pointing to the volume of "nasty discourse online" doesn’t answer the question. There will always be unpleasant speech. The issue is whether the state should have the authority to police opinions, or whether that authority inevitably expands, as it has everywhere it’s been tried.

You’re not rebutting the slippery-slope concern, you’re illustrating it. You’re comfortable with today’s line, therefore you assume tomorrow’s won’t move. That’s exactly how people lose rights they thought were secure.

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep repeating that "there’s a line" but that’s the entire point of the argument, who draws that line, and what limits stop the state from moving it whenever it wants?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you not know how laws are made? There is a process in place, and it's not new.

I don't feel a need to question the entire democratic process.

Perhaps you can help me understand by answering a couple of clarifying questions?

Do you think there should be any limits to what is posted on the internet?
Do you believe harassment is worthy of prohibition under certain circumstances?
Do you not support how laws are made, and applied?
If not - what is your alternative?
Do you not see a direct connection between voters wishes, and the acts of governments?

You see, in the UK, there has been varied legislation with the expressed desire to prevent fraud, and other crimes, performed on the internet. The internet is an extension of our society, and I think most people would support protections.

Your reply seems to be more anti-government than it does apply to this particular subject.

You’re treating the existence of democratic procedures as if they were a safeguard against abuse. They aren’t. Every country that has ever censored speech also "debated, introduced, and voted" on those laws. The process doesn’t make the outcome any less dangerous.

They are a protection. Does that mean it prevents 100% of possible abuses? No. Nothing is ever 100%. Whether it is "dangerous" or not is part of the discussion. Laws also have limits. Due process drives enforcement. That's the system our countries have followed for generations. What is your alternative?

You list threats and harassment, but those were already illegal without needing new speech controls. The concern isn’t about punishing actual crimes. It’s about criminalizing expression that government officials subjectively decide crosses a shifting boundary. That’s why examples matter, they show how broad, vague laws end up being stretched far beyond their stated purpose.

I can only suggest you read the history of how these specific laws came to be. Harassment was indeed already a crime, but it wasn't honed for a world where we use digital communication. So, it was revised to ensure we are protected online. Isn't this exactly how things are supposed to work?

You also continue to write things like "It’s about criminalizing expression that government officials subjectively decide crosses a shifting boundary". I can only state once more, I have yet to see an example given where government officials woke up one day and decided what is one side of the line, and what was on the other, without any reference to the citizens and our society. That simply doesn't happen in the west. The elected government represent the people, not the other way around.

As such, no laws are being "stretched far beyond their stated purpose". That is why the law was reexamined, because it didn't offer enough protection given the way we communicate in 2025. Of course, if you are against this law you are free to protest it, to contact those that voted for it, and try to get it changed. This is how our society works.

And pointing to the volume of "nasty discourse online" doesn’t answer the question. There will always be unpleasant speech. The issue is whether the state should have the authority to police opinions, or whether that authority inevitably expands, as it has everywhere it’s been tried.

No, the state does not have the right to police opinions. They do have the task of bringing infringements of the law to account. I've been on the internet since the very earliest days - I've yet to be arrested. I don't know if you have been, but yes, in order to do due diligence, you must be both aware of the law, and be vigilant. This is how the policing of all crimes takes place, isn't it? We don't just trust people not to drink and drive, we allow police the ability to stop and question people....

You’re not rebutting the slippery-slope concern, you’re illustrating it. You’re comfortable with today’s line, therefore you assume tomorrow’s won’t move. That’s exactly how people lose rights they thought were secure.

No offense intended, but I find the "slippery slope concern" a red herring. It comes across as just more conspiratorial anti-government rhetoric. I don't subscribe to the paranoia, and don't spend lifecycles worrying about every eventuality as though it's a Marvel movie where alien beings are going to swoop down and take over. That's just not me.

Instead, I prefer not to simply insinuate, worry, panic, and make a fuss. I try to understand how we got to where we are. You might make assumptions about me based on that, but frankly I refute them. How can you suggest I "assume tomorrow’s won’t move" when I am the one supporting a law written specifically with the internet in mind, as an extension of then current laws? That's the complete opposite of what you're suggesting.

Now, for your edification, and to further illustrate that what we put on the internet can have consequences, I suggest you go to this thread and read the story there: Can extreme violence events be prevented?

Further, just to show you that this isn't a concern only for the UK, watch this video:

Search Youtube for "woman Discovers Man She Met Online Planning Mass Shooting", or search for the channel:
EWU Bodycam

 

[Antoli]

I'm sorry, which of these videos address someone being arrested for something the "government hates"?

For example, the second video. The guy was arrested was arrested for harassment and malicious communications. Harassment isn't only a thing if it happens face to face. It's 2025. The guy involved had been warned, but continued his actions. Of course, we're only getting his side of the story here. That said, it's clear from what he says that he was being antagonistic. He was questioned, and then released. They decided not to file formal charges.

Remember, this video does not present both sides of the case, it's clearly prejudiced toward the guy

The number of police officers is irrelevant.

The first video - same thing. Apparently people believe harassment only counts in face to face communication. They're wrong. Hate speech is also a thing. It's a shame people act badly online.

I could go over the others, but they're the same thing. The story on Graham Linehan is beyond ridiculous. It's clearly going for the drama angle. To claim freedom of speech is dead is such a ridiculous statement. At worst, we need to know that allegations of harassment via electronic means is not okay, and will be investigated. But this point hardly points to "free speech is dead". I mean, seriously. Talk about exaggeration.

I will also stress - nothing here relates to things the government hates. Instead, it's the LAW. Personally, I'm not for harassment. Are you?

You keep repeating that “it’s the law” and that none of this involves the government going after speech it dislikes. But that’s simply not true. There are multiple well-documented cases where ordinary British citizens, not celebrities, not politicians, were arrested, questioned, or databased specifically because of the viewpoint they expressed.

Here are just a few: 1.Harry Miller (2019–2020) A private citizen who posted satirical tweets. Police told him, “We need to check your thinking,” and logged a non-crime hate incident against him. No threat, no harassment, just an opinion police disliked. 2. Mark Meechan “Count Dankula” (2016–2018) Arrested and convicted for a joke video involving a dog. No victim. No harassment. Just speech the authorities found offensive.

3. Teenager arrested for posting song lyrics (2014) A young girl posted rap lyrics on Instagram. Police arrested her under the Communications Act. Again, no threat, no targeted harassment. 4. Man arrested for “misgendering” (2018–2019) An online argument escalated into a full arrest and device seizure because he used the “wrong” pronoun. That is viewpoint policing, not public safety.

5. Silent-prayer arrests (2022–2023) Private citizens arrested or fined for thinking silently outside a clinic. Police literally asked, “Are you praying in your mind?” If that’s not the state targeting disapproved beliefs, what is? 6. Bus passenger arrested for an “offensive joke” (2019) A man was arrested at home because someone overheard a joke he told on a bus.

These are not cases of threats. These are not stalking cases. These are not violent communications. They’re cases where the state intervened because it disliked the content of the speech. And saying “it’s the law” doesn’t refute anything, that is the problem.
The law itself empowers viewpoint-based enforcement.

If you’re personally comfortable with the current targets of the law, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the reality that the legal mechanism to suppress disfavored speech is already in place. That’s exactly what people mean when they say Britain no longer has strong free-speech protections.

 

[Antoli]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Do you not know how laws are made? There is a process in place, and it's not new.

I don't feel a need to question the entire democratic process.

Perhaps you can help me understand by answering a couple of clarifying questions?

Do you think there should be any limits to what is posted on the internet?
Do you believe harassment is worthy of prohibition under certain circumstances?
Do you not support how laws are made, and applied?
If not - what is your alternative?
Do you not see a direct connection between voters wishes, and the acts of governments?

You see, in the UK, there has been varied legislation with the expressed desire to prevent fraud, and other crimes, performed on the internet. The internet is an extension of our society, and I think most people would support protections.

Your reply seems to be more anti-government than it does apply to this particular subject.


They are a protection. Does that mean it prevents 100% of possible abuses? No. Nothing is ever 100%. Whether it is "dangerous" or not is part of the discussion. Laws also have limits. Due process drives enforcement. That's the system our countries have followed for generations. What is your alternative?




I can only suggest you read the history of how these specific laws came to be. Harassment was indeed already a crime, but it wasn't honed for a world where we use digital communication. So, it was revised to ensure we are protected online. Isn't this exactly how things are supposed to work?

You also continue to write things like "It’s about criminalizing expression that government officials subjectively decide crosses a shifting boundary". I can only state once more, I have yet to see an example given where government officials woke up one day and decided what is one side of the line, and what was on the other, without any reference to the citizens and our society. That simply doesn't happen in the west. The elected government represent the people, not the other way around.

As such, no laws are being "stretched far beyond their stated purpose". That is why the law was reexamined, because it didn't offer enough protection given the way we communicate in 2025. Of course, if you are against this law you are free to protest it, to contact those that voted for it, and try to get it changed. This is how our society works.



No, the state does not have the right to police opinions. They do have the task of bringing infringements of the law to account. I've been on the internet since the very earliest days - I've yet to be arrested. I don't know if you have been, but yes, in order to do due diligence, you must be both aware of the law, and be vigilant. This is how the policing of all crimes takes place, isn't it? We don't just trust people not to drink and drive, we allow police the ability to stop and question people....



No offense intended, but I find the "slippery slope concern" a red herring. It comes across as just more conspiratorial anti-government rhetoric. I don't subscribe to the paranoia, and don't spend lifecycles worrying about every eventuality as though it's a Marvel movie where alien beings are going to swoop down and take over. That's just not me.

Instead, I prefer not to simply insinuate, worry, panic, and make a fuss. I try to understand how we got to where we are. You might make assumptions about me based on that, but frankly I refute them. How can you suggest I "assume tomorrow’s won’t move" when I am the one supporting a law written specifically with the internet in mind, as an extension of then current laws? That's the complete opposite of what you're suggesting.

Now, for your edification, and to further illustrate that what we put on the internet can have consequences, I suggest you go to this thread and read the story there: Can extreme violence events be prevented?

Further, just to show you that this isn't a concern only for the UK, watch this video:

Search Youtube for "woman Discovers Man She Met Online Planning Mass Shooting", or search for the channel:
EWU Bodycam

I already gave you several concrete cases where ordinary citizens were questioned, arrested, or databased specifically because of the viewpoint they expressed. You didn’t address any of them. Instead, you repeated the claim that this “doesn’t happen in the West.” But it did happen in the West. It happened in the UK. And it happened through the same democratic process you keep invoking.

That’s the entire point. You say the state doesn’t police opinions, but when you’re shown examples of authorities doing exactly that, you dismiss them simply because they were done “within the law.” That’s the problem. When laws are written vaguely enough terms like “grossly offensive,” “likely to cause distress,” or “non-crime hate incident” almost anything can be interpreted to fit. And once that power exists, it inevitably expands.

You’re defending the mechanism while ignoring its results. No one is arguing against punishing real threats or actual harassment. The concern is giving the state authority to treat opinions as offenses. That authority has already been used, repeatedly, and you’re refusing to acknowledge it. If your position is that these documented cases somehow don’t count, then you’ve just illustrated the slippery-slope concern better than I ever could.

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep repeating that “it’s the law” and that none of this involves the government going after speech it dislikes. But that’s simply not true. There are multiple well-documented cases where ordinary British citizens, not celebrities, not politicians, were arrested, questioned, or databased specifically because of the viewpoint they expressed.

No. You keep doing this time and again, and it's really stunting debate. It's not about the government going after speech it doesn't like. It's simply a matter of investigating based on the laws of the land. You talk as though all laws are forced on the people,whether the people want it to be the law or not. This is simply not how the law works in the UK, and it's not how it works in the US as far as I know.

If someone is accused of breaking a law, they can be visited, perhaps arrested, and even in rare cases have to go to a court hearing. When has that been any different? If you disagree with the harassment laws, or the hate crime laws, or incitement, then campaign to get them changed. Personally, I think most people are perfectly okay with there being laws to control such things. If accused, you can take it court, and you may even win. This is how laws get clarified.

What are you wanting - a free-for-all with no consequences for anything we say or do?

These are not cases of threats. These are not stalking cases. These are not violent communications. They’re cases where the state intervened because it disliked the content of the speech. And saying “it’s the law” doesn’t refute anything, that is the problem.
The law itself empowers viewpoint-based enforcement.

You don't generally get prosecuted for what something is not, and for what it is, or it's thought to be. I once again refute your insinuation that these cases only came about because the "state intervened", and honestly I'm not sure I can continue to discuss this with you based on that. You are constantly repeating an error. You ignore how our countries work, and have worked for hundreds of years, instead imagining it as North Korea. You want lack of free speech, go there!

If you’re personally comfortable with the current targets of the law, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the reality that the legal mechanism to suppress disfavored speech is already in place. That’s exactly what people mean when they say Britain no longer has strong free-speech protections.

People who claim UK no longer has free speech - as was done in an earlier video - are ignorant, nothing more, nothing less. It's a silly statement, and honestly I'd expect any sensible person to see it for what it truly is - propaganda.

As to what "strong free speech" is, I don't know. I can say and do whatever I please, as long as I'm causing no harm to others. How much freer do I need to be? How much freer do you need to be?

I am not an expert on the laws, but I have a good idea of how we ended up where we ware today. I like some laws, and I dislike others. I'm of the opinion that we only need laws in the first place because idiots have to be told what it is reasonable to do. I mean, drink driving is patently a really bad idea - but we need a law to take care of the problem.

By the way, the video I asked you to watch above occurred in the US, not the UK. Do you think these issues are unique to us?

 

[VaughanJB]

I already gave you several concrete cases where ordinary citizens were questioned, arrested, or databased specifically because of the viewpoint they expressed. You didn’t address any of them. Instead, you repeated the claim that this “doesn’t happen in the West.” But it did happen in the West. It happened in the UK. And it happened through the same democratic process you keep invoking.

You are being disingenuous. Four examples were given earlier, and I did indeed address them. How many more do you want me to address? The principles don't seem to vary. Besides, I asked you to look at a video, and read another thread, and you never addressed that either.

My posts are already long. You are misquoting me regarding "doesn't happen in the west",which is disappointing. Context is everything.

Fact is, I'm recovering from eye surgery, and I'm having difficulty seeing right now. Regardless, going over and over every single case to your satisfaction won't add anything to the discussion. You'll post a case, I'll read it and let you know that a process was followed, and you'll complain I've not addressed the overriding issue of scope creep. Honestly, let's be frank, you don't care what I think about those cases. You want to argue at me, not discuss with me.

 

[RambleTamble]

There should be a law banning Tom Brady's inane comments during NFL games where he provides "color commentary." It should be called "inane commentary."

 

[VaughanJB]

There should be a law banning Tom Brady's inane comments during NFL games where he provides "color commentary." It should be called "inane commentary."

When I waiting for my surgery, I was in a waiting room with a bunch of other people. They all started talking about some TV show set in a jungle, and then some dancing show. Let me tell you, I felt like an alien from another planet. I had no clue who the people were they were talking about (and actually got quite animated about), nor the channels they were watching.

It's all very well removing yourself from mainstream entertainment, but there clearly is a point where it robs you of the ability to make small talk.

 

[Antoli]

No. You keep doing this time and again, and it's really stunting debate. It's not about the government going after speech it doesn't like. It's simply a matter of investigating based on the laws of the land. You talk as though all laws are forced on the people,whether the people want it to be the law or not. This is simply not how the law works in the UK, and it's not how it works in the US as far as I know.

If someone is accused of breaking a law, they can be visited, perhaps arrested, and even in rare cases have to go to a court hearing. When has that been any different? If you disagree with the harassment laws, or the hate crime laws, or incitement, then campaign to get them changed. Personally, I think most people are perfectly okay with there being laws to control such things. If accused, you can take it court, and you may even win. This is how laws get clarified.

What are you wanting - a free-for-all with no consequences for anything we say or do?



You don't generally get prosecuted for what something is not, and for what it is, or it's thought to be. I once again refute your insinuation that these cases only came about because the "state intervened", and honestly I'm not sure I can continue to discuss this with you based on that. You are constantly repeating an error. You ignore how our countries work, and have worked for hundreds of years, instead imagining it as North Korea. You want lack of free speech, go there!



People who claim UK no longer has free speech - as was done in an earlier video - are ignorant, nothing more, nothing less. It's a silly statement, and honestly I'd expect any sensible person to see it for what it truly is - propaganda.

As to what "strong free speech" is, I don't know. I can say and do whatever I please, as long as I'm causing no harm to others. How much freer do I need to be? How much freer do you need to be?

I am not an expert on the laws, but I have a good idea of how we ended up where we ware today. I like some laws, and I dislike others. I'm of the opinion that we only need laws in the first place because idiots have to be told what it is reasonable to do. I mean, drink driving is patently a really bad idea - but we need a law to take care of the problem.

By the way, the video I asked you to watch above occurred in the US, not the UK. Do you think these issues are unique to us?

You keep repeating the same mantra, “it’s the law”, as if that somehow proves the state isn’t targeting speech. It doesn’t. It only shows you’re unwilling to look at how those laws are actually being used. The simple fact is that ordinary citizens have been questioned, warned, databased, or prosecuted in the UK for speech that was lawful, non-threatening, and non-harassing. That is not speculation. It is documented. Some of those interventions were later ruled unlawful or disproportionate by the courts themselves. Your denial doesn’t erase that.

Your argument boils down to this, if the police act, then it must have been justified. That’s not reasoning, it’s blind faith in authority. And pretending that broad, subjective laws can’t be abused because “the people voted for them” is exactly how free-speech protections erode in the first place.

You also keep insisting that the UK has full free speech because you personally “feel free.” That’s not a standard. Every country with limited speech claims the same thing, that the restrictions only affect “bad people.” That mindset is how governments get away with expanding those restrictions. You don’t have to agree with me. But dismissing well-known cases as if they never happened just tells me you’re defending a conclusion you reached before the conversation even started.

 

[Antoli]

You are being disingenuous. Four examples were given earlier, and I did indeed address them. How many more do you want me to address? The principles don't seem to vary. Besides, I asked you to look at a video, and read another thread, and you never addressed that either.

My posts are already long. You are misquoting me regarding "doesn't happen in the west",which is disappointing. Context is everything.

Fact is, I'm recovering from eye surgery, and I'm having difficulty seeing right now. Regardless, going over and over every single case to your satisfaction won't add anything to the discussion. You'll post a case, I'll read it and let you know that a process was followed, and you'll complain I've not addressed the overriding issue of scope creep. Honestly, let's be frank, you don't care what I think about those cases. You want to argue at me, not discuss with me.

You’re drifting into personal commentary again. I’m not interested in your eyesight or your assumptions about my motives, I’m addressing the actual substance of the discussion. You claimed you "addressed the examples," but your replies boiled down to the same circular move every time, "a process was followed, therefore nothing is wrong." That’s precisely the point you’re avoiding, if the state can investigate or arrest people for speech, then pointing to "process" doesn’t resolve the concern, it proves it.

And no, I didn’t misquote you. You said this "doesn’t happen in the West," and when presented with cases showing that it does, you pivoted to intent, context, and now personal grievances. You keep saying I "don’t care what you think," but what I actually want is simple: engage with the principle instead of hiding behind procedure. If you want to argue that the government should have the power to police lawful speech, then just say so plainly and defend it. If not, then these cases matter. But dismissing them by calling me disingenuous isn’t an argument, it’s a dodge.