[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.