That's what would be reasonably expected, but it's not backed up by the information.
> The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections. [emphasis added]
Thanks. That wasn't clear from the Mail article above.
But the Times article also says:
> A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services.
So I think the categorisation is a mess, and probably not even consistent across forces
I have to say, it is a bit astonishing how much you are in a kind of bargaining stage of trying to rationalize how what is happening, is not actually happening, all while the trap doors are closing all around you even though very slowly.
Why do you think that is?
It is not just a British thing, because this ruling class tyranny is descending all across the western world, regardless of whether it is particularly egregious in the UK. Or should we maybe just start calling it Airstrip One at this point, the AO?
For me at least (different person), the term "speech offences" has been so captured by the far-right who think publicly advocating for the burning down of buildings populated with minorities is totally fine, but calling someone racist is beyond the pale. Whereas, at least from my own experience, progressives tend to use phrases related to expression, eg, protests.
And so when I hear "speech offences", my immediate thought is to question the premise: Are we talking about people publicly advocating for mass violence? Are we talking about bullying or harassment? Are we talking about a private conversation? Are we talking about a group chat? Are we talking about hate speech? Are we talking about defamation? Are we talking about "fighting words"? Etc. Context matters.
For all the talk I see online advocating for social media to be considered a public space, I've yet to see anyone really grasp the consequences of that: have any of them tried yelling out in a public space that they should burn down a populated building? That won't go down well, and rightly so. It has never been okay to do that.
People facing consequences for broadcasting their depraved bloodlust online doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the extent to which protests against genocide are being suppressed, with police looking for any minor infraction to pounce upon, but we have video of people saying to police "I support the genocide" to make a point, which the police don't bat an eye at. That scares me.
Maybe I am reading these wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me these sources indicate that a significant number of people are being arrested for “speech offenses,” which I’m guessing you are using as shorthand for statements akin to those that would fall under “free speech” in the US. If I’m not seeing it or I am not correctly defining what you mean, feel free to correct me. I’m having to make some assumptions here
It can be hard to wrap your head around it from the US, but many of these are people that are in fact being arrested for writing posts on social media, e.g.,
> It can be hard to wrap your head around it from the US,
Come on. Was that necessary? I understand what we are talking about, I am saying none of those articles indicate that there is some huge thing going on where people in the UK are being arrested by the tens of thousands for irreverent memes or whatever. The issue is not my understanding, it’s the handwaving and vague generalizations that are causing issues. It’s coming across as fear mongering and I am looking for clarity.
And in many other countries those would get you prosecuted for hate speech or incitement to violence.
The lie here is you've picked too examples of atrocious behavior, but you're trying to pretend that actually all the rest are just people posting dank memes and so "it could happen to you!!".
Indeed. The success of even one such prosecution means that the second someone in government wants someone out of the way, they can efficiently be imprisoned for anything rising to the level of... "offensive."
Huge numbers are for political speech. It's not just prosecutions. Child protection is abused to force far left wing beliefs on the population.
A former Marine was charged with inciting racial hatred after describing some migrants as “scumbags” and “psychopaths” in a 12-minute video posted on Facebook following the murders of three children in Southport, which sparked riots around the country. He was then banned from coaching his own daughter's football club. A jury cleared him in 17 minutes, but Wales is run by the left so they kept the coaching ban in place because they believe right wing people are a threat to children.
In another case a teacher was banned from working with children after telling a Muslim child that "Britain is still a Christian state"
There are lots of cases like this. Especially if you expand to Europe. The German Chancellor has personally prosecuted thousands of speech cases against people who insulted him. Merkel established a general rule against insulting politicians so now people get police visits and their devices confiscated for saying things like such and such a politician is a dumbass.
> He was then banned from coaching his own daughter's football club. A jury cleared him in 17 minutes, but Wales is run by the left so they kept the coaching ban in place because they believe right wing people are a threat to children.
Who is the "they" in this? The football club? If the situation is essentially that he called certain groups scumbags, but the footbal club has members of that group, its not surprising he would be banned.
Being rude gets you banned from things. I don't see a problem with that. He wasn't thrown in jail, he said something that offended some people and as a result they decided they didn't like him anymore. Freedom of association is also freedom to chose not to associate with people you don't like.
> In another case a teacher was banned from working with children after telling a Muslim child that "Britain is still a Christian state"
I mean, that sounds like a dick thing to say to a child or to anyone. And not particularly true (yes there are some vestiges with the church of england, but you are allowed to be any religion in england)
Was that person prosecuted or just fired?
> The German Chancellor has personally prosecuted thousands of speech cases against people who insulted him.
It is by no means a good publication, but at the same time being accepted as a citation on Wikipedia or not is not necessarily a particularly objective measure of quality. I recommend reading https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik... for the critical perspective on Wikipedia's integrity in this regard.
They are a trash paper so skepticism is warranted but care should be taken not to dismiss facts just because of who reports them. Thankfully, we don't have to depend on the word of the Daily Mail for evidence that the UK doesn't value the ideal of free speech and are far too comfortable punishing and silencing online speech. It's a problem, and it makes their efforts to tie people's online activity to an individual worrying.
The Daily Mail is frequently referred to as either 'The Daily Fail' or 'The Daily Heil' (referring to the fact they supported Oswald Mosley and his fascist ideals, and remain very right wing). It is not a quality publication by any means.
> Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day. This marks an almost 58 per cent rise in arrests since before the pandemic. In 2019, forces logged 7,734 detentions.
This article really doesn't go into what the communication was about. They have some anecdata, but once you go into 10k+ of examples, you're almost guaranteed to get mistakes. Maybe the situation is bad overall, but that article really doesn't show it.
That's exactly it. The proscription is ridiculous and delegitimises the whole concept of proscribed organization. It collapses into "mere support for Palestine is an arrestable offense". This didn't work against Sinn Fein and it will not work now.
Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately. I'm fairly sure that other groups previously like the Greenham Common camp didn't get this treatment.
It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those who organized it. Going after those speaking in support is what's excessive.
> It was reasonable to arrest people who actually broke into the base and those who organized it. Going after those speaking in support is what's excessive
Speaking out, yes. Helping organize? No.
Where the UK took it over the top was in using terrorist statute to shut down the organisation. That was unnecessary. But if the organisation helped organise the action—and this is not yet proven—its assets should have been frozen while the organisation and its leaders are investigated. If the organisation were found to have knowingly aided and abetted the break-in, it should have been shut down.
All of this could have been done using mostly civil and a little criminal law. None of it required terrorism laws.
> Also the whole thing moved incredibly quickly; it went from new organization to banned almost immediately.
Are you sure? They were founded in 2020.
You can argue that destroying property may be legitimate protest, but that is not all they did. In 2024 they used sledgehammers to destroy machinery in an Elbit factory. Again, arguably legitimate protest. But then they attacked police officers and security guards who came to investigate with those same sledgehammers. That is in no way legitimate.
If the government was going to proscribe them for anything it should have been for that. The RAF thing was indeed bullshit.
Anyway, it seems to me that to simultaneously believe that
a) telling a group of people that they can't use a particular name is an unacceptable attack on our freedoms yet
b) physically attacking people with sledgehammers is OK
I think it's general knowledge that the UK military is a paper tiger, I think Charlie Stross said something about it being enough to defend one small village or something like that (he occasionally comments on this site so may correct me).
I think that damaging what little remains of its defences, which may exist mostly to keep the nukes safe so nobody tries anything, is still a really bad idea. Especially given that the US is increasingly unstable and seems like it may stop responding to calls from assistance from anyone else in NATO, and the UK isn't in the EU any more and therefore can't ask the entire EU for help either just the bits that are also in NATO. Theoretically the UK could also ask Canada for help, but right now it seems more likely that Canada will be asking all of NATO except for the USA for military aid to keep the USA out.
(What strange days, to write that without it being fiction…)
So you understand that the proscription is the core problem, but in the same breath, still focus the blame on protestors for fighting this proscription?
By the way, in case you somehow overlooked it, the whole point of people protesting under the banner of Palestine Action is to protest the illegitimate proscription.
then you haven't been paying attention. the UK is in fact arresting people for all sorts of speech online. the vast majority is not a call for violence at all.
Parallel realities. Over here it seems like the US is a dystopia, with how hostile their leadership is to democratic institutions and how greatly it empowers oligarchs.
They think that European countries (or commonly just "Europe") are about to arrest all citizens for criticizing politicians. "Europe" must be saved from their leftist fascist regimes. For now using propaganda. Soon militarily.
It's illegal to insult anyone in Germany, and has been for a long time. Libel, slander, and insults are all criminal (not civil) offences. I know what you're thinking: "That sounds crazy" - Yeah, it kinda is. In practice this is rarely enforced, as the offended party must file a formal complaint and most people have better things to do.
> "That sounds crazy" - Yeah, it kinda is. In practice this is rarely enforced
Generally, selective enforcement is itself a huge problem. That might not actually be an issue in this instance though if the only thing preventing enforcement is the lack of a formal complaint and assuming that the complaint process is easily accessible to everyone (not requiring money to file, and without other barriers that might prevent certain people from filing but not others). It's still a terrible idea to make it illegal to insult others, but "rarely enforced" may not be the red flag it usually is.
Well, time is money, right? If someone files a complaint and goes through with whatever proceedings ensue you can bet that it's not a single mom working a full-time job. For police officers, on the other hand, enforcing this law on behalf of themselves is part of their job. So in practice this law is grossly unfair. It does lead to a greater level of decorum in public debate than in most other countries, which is nice, but it's not a fair law by any means.
I think you're holding the German law to a much higher standard than many hold their legal systems.
On the other side of the pond cases are routinely decided by who can afford the right lawyer or litigation costs.
So yeah, it's very admirable that you want German law to be perfect, but you've gotta admit how it currently ranks up against real-world points of reference other than the ideal.
German prosecutors actually did a bizarre and out-of-touch (for an American audience) interview with 60 Minutes recently where they proudly declare they're going to bring order to the Internet and how things like calling politicians "dicks"[1] is rightfully VERBOTEN.
> But it was a 2021 case involving a local politician named Andy Grote that captured the country's attention. Grote complained about a tweet, that called him a "pimmel," a German word for the male anatomy. That triggered a police raid and accusations of excessive censorship by the government. As prosecutors explained to us, in Germany, it's OK to debate politics online. But it can be a crime to call anyone a "pimmel," even a politician.
Naturally, it's necessary to arrest people for being mean and/or expressing VERBOTEN political beliefs on the Internet so that...uh...everyone will feel free to express their opinions.
> Josephine Ballon: This is not only a fear. It's already taking place, already half of the internet users in Germany are afraid to express their political opinion, and they rarely participate in public debates online anymore. Half of the internet users.
Germany does not protect free speech the way the US does. You're free to voice any opinion, but the exact wordings in which you are allowed to do it are restricted. You are allowed to say "I hate Merz" but not "Merz is a piece of garbage".
I'm not saying this is good, but it's not recent and it does not prevent free communication of ideas.
As we have seen, it is very easy to declare certain beliefs beyond contestation and any disagreement with them as insulting/inciting hate/etc.
That's why freedom of speech must entail the freedom to say things people find offensive, or there's no free communication of ideas at all. The state and ruling elites will determine that there is a set of proscribed ideas and a set of approved ideas and yours fall into the wrong set.
Banning speech and ideas also accelerates extremist - Weimar had very strong hate speech laws and prosecuted and imprisoned Nazis many many times. [1] The Nazis turned around and used the same laws on their enemies. Then the Stasi with similar motives used similar means. Suppressing speech in the name of order seems to be a German cultural value.
It's being enforced more these days, perhaps because social media makes it more tempting and easier to insult politicians in a manner where it can be easily detected. In the old days, you'd have to hand out flyers or get your letter to the editor published in a newspaper, in order to insult politicians where they could notice, and even then there was no way to automatically detect it. But when people insult politicians on social media, it's an extremely low bar for the effort required, both to do it, and to detect it.
If someone were to insult me on social media, I'd never know about it, because I'm not constantly monitoring Twitter. But some politicians pay some agency to constantly monitor Twitter etc, and then they file complaints about everyone they catch in the act, and then the jackbooted police kick down the perpetrators' doors and confiscate their phones and computers.
Are these adults? This level of sensitivity is what I'd expect from a toddler. We tell them to ignore it and usually/hopefully they grow up into healthy adults that don't mind insults from strangers.
https://freespeechunion.org/daily-mail-investigation-exposes...