[foldr]

> Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which questioned whether transgender women are biological women. It included the lines: "Your breasts are made of silicone, your vagina goes nowhere."

The most disturbing aspect of this is that there is no possible limerick including those lines!

As a Brit who's lived in the USA and UK, I'd say that people outside the UK probably get a misleading impression from new stories like this. I'd say that political discussion in the UK is actually freer in practice than in the US. There's certainly a wider range of opinion in the mainstream press, and Prime Ministers are more effectively held to account by Parliament than Presidents are held to account by congress and the judiciary.

What the article describes is obviously an absurd waste of police time. However, no-one was even arrested, so it's hard to get excited about it as an example of someone's free speech rights being violated. I would happily take this kind of police harassment over the kind that leads to unarmed people being shot. It at least targets people who vaguely deserve it.

[Kalium]

In the US, there's this notion of a chilling effect. Even if nothing ultimately comes of it, police harassment has the effect of convincing people to stay silent. This is not exactly a win, and definitely the kind of tool that the less kind sort of government has used to suppress ideas they dislike.

[foldr]

Yes, sure, but this particular example of police harassment isn’t especially disturbing. Do you not think that, for example, routinely shooting unarmed black men probably has a bit more of a “chilling effect” than this does?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-...

As I said, I’d be wary of forming your opinion of what political discourse is like in the UK from reading news stories. How much time have you actually spent in the UK?

[Kalium]

You're right. Routinely shooting unarmed black men definitely has a great many unwanted effects, not the least of which are on the people who get shot.

We're fortunate, then, that this is not something anyone is suggesting should be done in the UK! Nor is the question at hand the probative value of whataboutism.

The question at hand is that of police in the UK turning up and asking you why you're making an arse of yourself online. Against the possibility that they could not do that.

[foldr]

Come to think of it, does the First Amendment actually stop the police in the US doing the same thing? The article reports that the police acknowledged that no crime had been committed. I don't think that there's anything unconstitutional about a police officer calling someone up and asking them questions.

[Kalium]

In the US, a pattern of police doing so could be actionable.

It would be rather difficult for most American PDs to justify devoting resources to investigating somoene being mean online unless it was in a fairly narrow set of categories (clear and specific threat, harassment, etc.).

[foldr]

What's your basis for saying that it could be actiobable under the first ammendment?

It would be equally difficult for British PDs as far as I can see. But police in both countries don't always use resources wisely.

[conjectures]

> 'I would happily take this kind of police harassment over the kind that leads to unarmed people being shot.'

Yup, can confirm that not getting shot ranks quite highly in my list of policing preferences.

Also, I note the story points out that the book was first printed in the UK to avoid problems in the US...