[landl0rd]

Strictly speaking most have been arrested on immigration-related charges but been targeted for prosecution due to criticizing israel. This is bad and a large step in the wrong direction but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws of Britain and many european countries.

[KaiserPro]

> but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws

those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough.

The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved. Yes, you will have heard of cases where someone was simple "just a bit racist" but thats moreoften than not an aggravating factor.

[landl0rd]

In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media.

The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom.

Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable rights, in 2016, almost 9 people every day were detained and questioned for online speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.

Britons have been jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun. Or for saying illegals should be mass-deported. They have also been jailed for things that probably are closer to hate speech but that is just as bad.

Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn when such a basically unjust law is allowed to stand.

[pcrh]

> inalienable rights

The UK doesn't follow the American declaration of independence...

In UK law such "inalienable rights" are found within the Human Rights Act, 1998 [0], itself based largely on the European Convention on Human Rights [1]. Both are famously disparaged by the political right.

[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

[1] https://coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention/home

[landl0rd]

That's basically irrelevant from where I stand. I don't subscribe to the idea that everything is relative. That we should "respect different choices". The point of an inalienable right is that it's intrinsic according to our basic values. The british failing to respect that doesn't change it.

[erxam]

There is no such thing as an unalienable right or as a human right.

Rights are simply the expression of the interests of certain classes at a certain point in time.

That said, I struggle to find "free speech" a compelling inalienable right when it's what has directly led to the disaster befalling the Americas in this very moment. Especially since the American conception of "free speech" isn't just to be able to express oneself, but to actually have one's words be accepted no matter what.

[landl0rd]

Okay, I think we have a fundamental disagreement in our first principles that won't be reconciled. I hope people who believe as you do live abroad and do not bring those views to America where y'all could vote. Nothing personal but that's not a reconcilable difference.

[pcrh]

You would have to point out where the current law in the UK is unjust.

The current law surrounding "inalienable rights" in the UK is based on the ECHR that I linked to.

[landl0rd]

I believe that America's standard of imminent lawless action is the only even remotely-okay circumstance under which you can punish speech directly. The ECHR really doesn't have any bearing on what is right and wrong; laws do not determine morality.

[tankenmate]

"due process" is one part of justice, one that is administered by the courts (even if effected by the police/bailiffs). "allowing a law to stand" is another part of justice, one that is administered by the legislative.

[KaiserPro]

> Police Scotland posted on its Twitter,

is a different body and has different laws to England.

The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications"

Actually is gross offense.

> speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.

For gross offense, or threatening communications? Because there is a world of difference. Its the same act that is used to procecute someone sending death threats as it is for "gross offense"

> jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun.

yeah but you missed out the other bits. Like the photo it was attached to, the other words he wrote, and _when_ he wrote it

> for saying illegals should be mass-deported

yeah I couldnt find that one.

> Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn

It is worth a dam, because thats how law works.

[landl0rd]

Did you miss the part where I specified the Met Police often do the same. Let me give you an example of "gross offense": "commentary from you regarding the rainbow flags which represent the LBGT community." https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fl4VM7VXkAM8-km.jpg:large

"Offending someone" being a crime is basically immoral.

Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative Party councilor, was the one jailed for her comments around mass deportation. 31 months. These statements wouldn't get someone investigated, let alone jailed, in America.

Due process isn't worth a damn morally if we are discussing unjust laws. Saying "but he got due process" doesn't matter if the law that is being applied is deeply, fundamentally, and inexcusably reprehensible.

[KaiserPro]

> was the one jailed for her comments

The one that fanned huge fucking protests, the one that caused a massive spike in violence, many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage? That old poor innocent councillors wife?

Britain and the US are very different. In the same way that a lot of americans think that school shootings are a fair exchange for second amendment rights, this is a fair exchange for not having shitstirring fucks whip up tensions.

Look, you're not going to be convinced by any of this, because of where (I assume) you grew up. But think of it this way, how many of those constitutional protections Americans have now, have been broken by the current executive branch of the USA? what practical constitutional checks and balances have actually worked when they are being tested?

The 6th amendment appears to not hold with anyone who ICE touches. Personally I'd be much more excised about the USA right now, given that it cant even practice what it's currently trying to preach.

Also, if you want analysis of why Connolly got that sentence: https://davidallengreen.com/2025/05/explaining-a-31-month-se...

[landl0rd]

Right I am not actually interested in whether it was legal under british law. My point is british law is unjust and fundamentally illiberal in this respect. Anything that wouldn't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of "imminent lawless action" is unconscionably bad.

All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police...

This is from The Economist of all places not some right-wing rag. Please do not stick your head in the sand on this to "own the rightoids" or whatever. If you're a lefty oppose it on grounds of how it's used against the pro-palestinians.

P.S. I don't see why you're bringing up the trump admin's actions like one bad thing existing means another can't. Both things can be bad. We can oppose both things. It's not that hard.

[skippyboxedhero]

The number today is 30 arrests per day.

[KaiserPro]

ok, can you provide a link to where that number comes from?

[chairmansteve]

The laws may be different but the result is identical. JD Vance should look at the bible he likes to tout. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"

[landl0rd]

Vance isn't running policy. He is the vice president.

Many people are arrested every day. Some are for justified reasons and some are not. "The result is identical." Intent and rationale matter.