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

GoneFishin

GoneFishin

Well-known Member
Location
Canada 🏠⛺🚤
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 you’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.
 

While I admittedly know nothing about what is going on in the UK, I get the feeling that " Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law" is one of those catchall phrases that actually mean nothing. What does he define as a keyboard warrior? Someone who expresses an opinion? Someone who announces that he is about to go out and start shooting people with his assault weapon?

I wouldn't get too upset about this kind of assertion until I knew exactly what he had in mind.
 
Was this commissioner driven to action by a certain type of online activity? I could see some sort of action if the online activity involved threats, committing fraud, or especially those who target children in some way. Seems to me there must be something else behind this story.
 
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.
 
In the US a local jurisdiction probably wouldn't honor the warrant. It would probably have to be the DOJ and FBI. And lets say it goes so far as an arrest or serving an international warrant. The UK suspect could probably get the warrant dropped in court or on appeal. Probably the same in many other countries.

Sounds like grandstanding to show what ever.
 
George1959 said:
Goodbye to free speech in the U.K. and even outside of the country if it is related to British topics. And goodbye to Britain for me. I'd never visit such a country.
Click to expand...
I'd still go back. I like the country and the people. I just wouldn't go right now. Making Brits feel isolated is probably the plan. They did this with France back in 2023. The French are still burning their country down. It didn't stop anything.
 
Grampa Don said:
Is there any written document in Britain that guarantees freedom of speech? Or is it just custom? I seem to remember reading once that during WWII some people were put in jail for speaking out against the war.
Click to expand...
None that I'm aware of, but I'm no expert.

My impression is that out of embarrassment and to quell domestic unrest the UK likes to make wild claims to itself like pretending it has free speech, privacy, is a democracy, etc.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.​
....​
 
fuzzybuddy said:
But thoughts and speech are not criminal.
Click to expand...

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
 
Grampa Don said:
Is there any written document in Britain that guarantees freedom of speech? Or is it just custom? I seem to remember reading once that during WWII some people were put in jail for speaking out against the war.
Click to expand...
The English Bill of Rights, 1689​
Key Guarantees: The Bill of Rights also guaranteed a number of other key political and civil rights, including free speech (at least for members of Parliament), the right to bear arms (at least for Protestants), the right to petition the government for grievances, etc.

Although social elites (especially the ‘gentry’) would long continue to control Parliament politically, they did so in the name of the English people as a whole, and the members of the House of Commons, which dominated Parliament, served as elected representatives of local districts.

Thus the Glorious Revolution marks the end of true monarchical rule, the advent of a Parliamentary or republican form of government, and a shift in the justification for government from divine right to popular sovereignty—the idea that the people themselves are sovereign.

https://users.ssc.wisc.edu/~rkeyser/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/English-Bill-of-Rights1.pdf
 
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...
I hope not, but yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is both speech and criminal, as is conspiring to commit a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top