The UK already arrests more than 1,000 a month people for online "hate speech". Higher than the official numbers for China, whatever those are worth. They'll probably reach the unofficial, real number soon enough.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
"The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network."
Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.
You should read the whole article: "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." ".
Some of these people are certainly not saying kind things, and are saying things that I object to. That being said, objectionable speech is the only kind of speech that needs robust legal protection. A democratic society cannot endure under a regime that can, at the discretion of any given officer, decide you have said something objectionable and are now subject to the law.
there's many to choose from, you can google for more. But here's what got Lucy Connolly a 31 month sentence:
"Mass deportations, now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, if that makes me a racist, so be it".
Racist maybe, although she doesn't seem to care about race.
Offensive, yeah, seems that it could be interpreted as offensive, but thats not technically illegal (the high court has repeatedly affirmed to right to be offensive).
Inciting violence (the offense she was convicted of) no, not at all, she was stating her political opinion and her belief that the lives of immigrants is worth less than british children.
Although people will point out she admitted guilt, but the threat of significant pre-trail imprisonment was used a lot at this time to force guilty pleas.
She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot.
She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card".
This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".
If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights.
I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action.
We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing.
From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse."
I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.
That non crime hate incident goes on your criminal record and if you need an enhanced criminal records check, it will show up, and can be used to deny you employment. Its not just intimidation.
Chelsea Russell, "a 19-year-old woman from Liverpool, was sentenced to an eight-week community order, a curfew from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., and an electronic ankle tag after being found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message by posting rap lyrics on her Instagram account." The lyrics were in homage to her friend who had died and this was their favourite song. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh...
Some of these people might be saying unpalatable things, but criminalising them or arresting them is having a huge effect on free speech. Once we give these rights away, they can and will be used any other government that gets in power, and at some point there will be one you don't agree with. These rights are hard won, and easily lost.
"The acts make it illegal to cause distress by sending “grossly offensive” messages or sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” on an electronic communications network."
Offensive messages cover a lot of contexts and don't sound as if they are necessarily hate speech.