[KaiserPro]

> Britain is people are being actually arrested for “offensive” speech

This isn't actually new though. The difference is that they'd normally be nicked for breaching the peace, which is loosey goosey enough to be used for most things.

ASBOs are far more totalitarian as they can legally stop people from doing legal things. (ie stop a child playing in a park)

But to tackle your main point, Yes people are being arrested for offensive speech, but thats normally only part of the reason for arrest.

I can call my MP a massive <pejorative that gets the Americans all abother>, I cannot however cause a race riot, as that's not allowed under freedom of expression.

I also cannot give advice on pensions.

I cannot threaten the lives of people

I also cannot claim to be a policeman

etc.

The thing you must understand is that _most_ people (ie not columnists or former PMs) accept that there is a tradeoff between "free speech" and a pleasant society. Sure we did look at your first amendment and think "ooo thats probably nice" but then we have the human rights act that enforces freedom of expression. (which the same columnists/former ministers are decrying freedom of speech are looking to get rid of "because it protects immigrants")

The Online safety act is a mess, because ofcom have not issued proper guidance, and the draft bill was directed by someone who was borderline insane (nadine dorris)

Age assurance is not actually a problem, what is a problem is asking me to hand over personal details so some fly by night US startup who'll get hacked/sell my data to blackmailers.

forcing websites to have moderation policies is fine, not having a flexible approach for smaller sites is not fine.

The act is flawed, but its not _actually_ that different from how Network TV is moderated in the USA.

[hn_throw2025]

You post recognises the boundary between free and illegal speech.

You have not addressed the fact that UK policing guidelines now have a third category of “legal but harmful” (which has resulted in real door knocks). This is subject to political outlook and therefore as “loosey goosey” as it gets.

[KaiserPro]

> now have a third category of “legal but harmful”

I'm sorry but the police always have had that. Again, ASBOs, public order offences, "please move along now", town dispersal orders.

Specifically ASBOs give the police the power to stop someone doing almost any action, the courts have deemed antisocial.

A good example of that is street preachers being stopped from using megaphones, which must have happened as early as ~2005

> which has resulted in real door knocks

from the OSA, I'm not aware of any cases yet?

> This is subject to political outlook and therefore as “loosey goosey” as it gets.

The law is always subject to political outlook. Even a constitution is no match for a concerted effort to undermine it. For example: article 124/125 of the 1936 USSR constitution allowed freedom of press, religion and the right to gather.

Look, unless we get someone extreme in power, and they are uniquely competent, they we are mostly safe. What will change that is the steady drip drip drip, of both economic hardship, and a willing medium to blame that on minorities.

So 2028 is around the time that jenrick will attempt to lock us all up.

[hn_throw2025]

I am talking about a Police visit over a sarcastic satirical tweet. There are other cases.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/31/kent-police-20k-...

> Look, unless we get someone extreme in power, and they are uniquely competent, they we are mostly safe. What will change that is the steady drip drip drip, of both economic hardship, and a willing medium to blame that on minorities. So 2028 is around the time that jenrick will attempt to lock us all up.

Sigh, I was half expecting drivel like that.

[KaiserPro]

Yes, but as the news piece clearly points out, it was incorrect and cost the police £20k.

> Sigh, I was half expecting drivel like that.

Look I have been railing against this shit for _years_ the Public Order Act 2023 is the latest in a looooong line of laws that have actually and practically curtailed our rights to protest.

I have organise, I have petitioned, I have shouted and screamed, and yet here we are. I have given up.

I look over at the states and just have to hope that it reeks enough that it puts people off the badenoch/jenrick/farage wank fest.

Sadly with the underfunding of courts, and the move to bench trials, means that we are probably fucked, no recourse unless you're rich

[amanaplanacanal]

I think you mean broadcast TV. Broadcast radio is similar. The legal justification is something about the limited supply of public airwaves. Those regulations wouldn't fly in the US for any other medium.

[KaiserPro]

It was about morals.

Hence the hollywood code, and all that sort of stuff.

The US really loved censorship, but just not in overt ways. Sure you could publish anything, but it'd never get syndicated by radio, newpaper, TV or cinema.