[ben_w]

IMO the standard is (1) when/why this can happen, and (2) how often it actually does so. (Though the linked story it wasn’t the police issuing the fine, which is an important distinction).

While I think of free speech as a continuum rather than a Boolean, I accept that it is coherent to take the position that anything, including calls for attacks against yourself named personally, are covered by free speech. I believe Twitter used to take that position: https://twitter.com/wef/status/710616930252677120

I don’t know what the tweet in the linked story actually wrote; he pleaded guilty to “pleaded guilty to sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing message”, but as I’m not a lawyer and even if I looked up the law I’d misunderstand it somehow, and as a non-lawyer will see the word “offensive” in that list and easily believe it could include something as simple as swearing, I can sympathise with the belief that the law is wrong.

However, I suspect the problem with his tweet was not really simply swearing.

> Also it is my understanding that it is much easier to sue someone for libel in the UK.

Yes on paper, but if you ask a lawyer they’ll explain the Streisand effect.