[helsinkiandrew]

Those 30 aren’t arrested for just for writing “social media posts” but for possibly “harmful communication including incitement to terrorism and violence, online threats and abuse, and unwanted communication via email and other means”

Of the 90% many will accept their fault and receive a caution or warning

Edit: and none of those cases would involve pretrial remand/jail

[loeg]

The vast majority of those arrested are just for mild insults, which are illegal under the censorious UK regime; not incitement to terrorism or threats.

[orwin]

I'm pretty sure it's threat of violence. Sure, in some of the cases, the threats are mild ('i will fuck you up'), but they are often repeated, which, to be clear, should be considered harassment in any case (and the fact that it still isn't in other countries is wild. Someone keeps sending me insults, I should be able to legally retaliate to make him stop, no?)

[kypro]

Do you live in the UK? This isn't true.

Here in the UK it is illegal to be grossly offensive online. Racism for example will have you charged under the Communications Act 2003.

[Hikikomori]

Have the racists tried not being racists?

[kypro]

Not UK but in Germany you can face criminal prosecution for insulting the chancellor,

https://x.com/Pirat_Nation/status/2056692341399081235

While here in the UK you can be arrested and charged for saying mean things about the royal family on private whatsapp groups,

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-09-07/five-former-met-p...

[graemep]

The second one was for specifically racist messages - i.e. breaching hate speech laws - not just being mean.

I am opposed to criminalising hate speech, BUT I think its important to be clear its not just "saying mean things".

[kypro]

> The second one was for specifically racist messages - i.e. breaching hate speech laws - not just being mean.

Can you provide a definition of "hate speech" which doesn't also apply to "mean words"?

Are you suggesting racist words are a special category of mean words or something? If so why?

[graemep]

The law does provide a definition of hate speech that does not apply to mean words in general.

You assume we both know what is meant by "racist words" which implies it is a category that can be defined. Hate speech laws apply to more categories than race too. The wikipedia article has excerpts of and links to the relevant legislation and important cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United...

[mghackerlady]

Hate speech is a subcategory of mean words that needs to be legally prevented for a just society where people are equal. Racist words are only hate speech if they are uttered and used in a discriminatory manner. Since whatever group is targeted by hate speech is the only group that can be harmed by the hate speech, they should be handled differently in the eyes of the law to ensure no one group is excessively discriminated against

[kypro]

Do you feel the same about homophobia, height discrimination, fat discrimination and other discriminatory behaviours? Or do you feel these are different enough that they should be treated differently?

I think I disagree with you on this, but I think what you've said is a perfectly valid opinion and appreciate your response. I'm sorry that it appears someone has downvoted you for disagreeing. This seems to be a new trend on HN and I wish people would stop doing it.

[866-RON-0-FEZ]

> possibly “harmful communication including incitement to terrorism and violence, online threats and abuse, and unwanted communication via email and other means”

That's a lot of colorful language to say "words hurt".

I could point you to 30 BlueSky posts that would qualify.... posted in the last 5 minutes.

[gruez]

>Of the 90% many will accept their fault and receive a caution or warning

Why do you need to arrest someone just to warn them?

[dmix]

In the UK the police can detain you for up to 24hrs without a judge and extend it to 36hrs in some cases.

One case I read of a guy who got in trouble for a social media post, he was called into the station and they basically forced him to sign a paper otherwise he couldn't leave as they'd just keep interrogating him, where I'd imagine they threatened to get the courts involved unless he admitted he was wrong for doing it. Which is why most of them don't end up as convictions.

It's basically a very aggressive warning.

Example: https://www.aol.com/police-apologise-arresting-former-specia...

> Mr Foulkes was detained in a police cell for eight hours and questioned in relation to a potential charge of malicious communications. He said he ended up accepting an unconditional caution because he feared the investigation could affect his visits to his daughter in Australia.

Another https://www.foxnews.com/world/blogger-arrested-sharing-anti-...

> After being questioned for several hours, North was released without charge.

[pixl97]

>In the UK the police can detain you for up to 24hrs without a judge and extend it to 36hrs in some cases.

So pretty much half the time than in the US. (County of Riverside v. McLaughlin)

-In the United States, police generally cannot hold you for more than 48 hours without formal charges or a probable cause hearing before a judge.

[dmix]

Yep pretty similar, technically in the UK they can go up to 96hrs if the police just ask a judge for an extension, even without formal charges. So about twice as long as the US's theoretical upper limit.

My main concern is the fact they are raiding peoples houses, taking electronics, and aggressively interrogating people for hours over a tweet, then pushing them to sign a document admitting they did something wrong without charging them. While everyone pretends they just got a 'warning' and it's not a big deal that this happens to thousands of people a year.

[pipes]

Given the met police chief thinks they shouldn't be doing this, I doubt that there isn't problem with the level of police involvement:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/sep/03/met-police-c...

[ljf]

Great summary here of the kind of things people are arrested for and a bit more about the laws this refers to https://open.substack.com/pub/monkdebunks/p/are-30-people-a-...

[pipes]

Sorry, that is far from a great summary. It quite obviously sets out to prove that there is nothing wrong. Evidence for this includes arrests have increased from 5k 12k a year but the number of convictions has gone down. That is far from reassuring. It seems to be claiming that all arrests fall into "bad" categories and have nothing to do with political thought. That is misrepresentation. Also narrowing of the argument in a attempt to refute the whole problem.

Here's one horrible example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j718we6njo

As an aside the police body cam footage one of the officers searching his house says "lots of Brexity books'

There are countless awful examples of arrests for online comments. Here's another:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

She posted the lyrics of her dead friends favourite rap song, and was convicted. How this even resulted in an arrest never mind court and conviction is beyond me.

[account42]

I'm pretty sure most people will "accept their fault" for whatever claims you make if you hold a gun against their head.

[cortesoft]

I mean, this is exactly what the Tennessee sheriff accused this guy of doing. The Sheriff said that a meme referencing Trump saying that people 'needed to get over' a school shooting was actually a threat against the school.

This is the problem with going after 'harmful communication'. It is not something that can be defined precisely, which allows government officials to choose to interpret it in whatever way they want when the enforce it. Obviously in these cases, the courts ruled against the official's interpretation, but that didn't stop this guy from having to spend 37 days in jail before they released him.

As they say "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

While it is good that the UK version doesn't send you to pretrial jail, you still have to fight the charge. You have to respond, spend time in court, hire council, and hope you can convince the courts that your post doesn't fit the definition of incitement to violence.

This has a chilling effect on free speech, even if all the cases are eventually thrown out. This is a tactic the Trump administration has used repeatedly. Go after people in court for things that are clearly not illegal. You make the person fight the charges, both in court and in the public eye, and then the cases are dismissed eventually and the administration moves on. All it does is make people factor this in when deciding how to act; is my act of protest worth having to fight this in court?

[petesergeant]

> While it is good that the UK version doesn't send you to pretrial jail, you still have to fight the charge

The UK has much stronger protections at the start of this process though. Pre-charge detention is capped at 96 hours, charging decisions are by a professional, non-political, and non-elected governmental department who have accountability, political cases require sign-off right up the ladder, and bail is presumed in favour of release. You might get a police visit, worst case scenario an arrest and your devices seized, but it's also a case that will go nowhere because the CPS won't charge it. And you don't really get this whole "rogue sheriff" issue in the first-place, because we're not insane enough to politicize local law-enforcement.

[ImJamal]

And harmful communication can be "Fuck Hamas" which may be hateful, but not harmful.