> and, at least for now, still post on social media without getting a knock on my door.
That's called "luck".
A friend of mine did likewise, and got a knock, then handcuffs, then a trial. He was acquitted because everything he said was allowed under the first amendment. In fact, several academics had published the same/similar stuff he did and not had any problems (or ever worried about them). But he was of the wrong race/religion...
There was never a time in the 20th-21st century where you can practice your 1st amendment rights and be absolutely sure you wouldn't get a knock on your door.
I think it's actually called statistics. In 2026, it would seem I'm statistically less likely to get arrested for a social media post in the US than the UK. I mean it's not like the reason is hidden. Arrests typically require crossing into narrow unprotected categories under the First Amendment: true threats (Virginia v. Black standard), incitement to imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio), or specific crimes like credible harassment, cyberstalking, or extortion.
It's quite a bit different than the UK's hate speech laws and the comparative result makes complete sense.
Got a link for those UK stats? Last time I went looking, even a Parliamentary report expressed that the stats are difficult to find, because the crime is eg malicious communications which covers a lot of acts.
Your links in another comment do not contain nearly enough detail to support the argument you're attempting to make. The 2 laws mentioned therein are broad and could cover many acts.
It's like a newspaper looking at the statistics for murder and creating a story that murder by asphyxiation with a pillow is on the rise.
n.b. I am not disagreeing that the police are policing social media. It's obviously an easy target. But we should be careful of newspapers pushing narratives, by asking for precise data
Well, that presents a problem when the news organizations that did investigate are just outright dismissed. The Times did a FOI request and are the ones who published the 12,183 figure which ultimately demonstrated the massive increase year over year.
The fact that there were signed petitions, two reports from supposably untrustworthy news organizations (that I could fine, there's probably more), and that it's been discussed at the national level multiple times, will either convince someone that it's 100% fabricated if they lean one way politically or that it's true if they lean the other way.
More and more I've found that it has nothing to do with data anymore. People will just ignore whatever isn't suitable to their beliefs.
You don't have the data on arrests specifically over social media posts, because they don't exist, so you chose to dismiss my reply and attempt an ad hominem.
I am not leaning one way or the other 100%, as indicated in my earlier reply. You are just reading what you want to read
I agree when there is not precise data available, inferences can be made from other data, but you must not state things like "statistically less likely to get arrested for a social media post in the US than the UK" when you don't have the actual, relevant statistics.
If you wish to argue with statistics, you must present them. And they will be cross examined, as is right and proper.
It was an observation, based on my own experiences, of how more and more people are dismissive based on their existing preferences. A refrain if you might. I have no idea what you believe or what your motivations are and I wasn't trying to guess.
But I digress. I'm the only one who has even attempted to provide any sort of data in this thread - which is typical of HN. Cast doubt and force the other party to continue to provide information until some unstated goal is satiated (and I often find the goal tends to move as well). It's a brilliant tactic, basically no effort and you can continue to feel confident in your assumptions. I miss when conversations were reciprocal.
Then we agree that it's not unreasonable for me to feel confident I am unlikely to get arrested in the US over a social media post than in the UK, which is the whole point I was making all along.
If you want to invoke statistics, I'm sure 99% of UK citizens are confident they won't get arrested over a social media post either. They probably worry about it a lot less than you would if you moved there.
Well, sure, I tend to ground my feelings about matters in statistics. If others don't do that, then it makes total sense they might feel worried about it. But I mean there's entire groups of people saying, quite loudly, that they don't like the social media arrests and how they feel draconian. You don't really need to "guess" about a sentiment. Clearly enough people are concerned that it's being talked about at a national level. I'm not aware of anything similar, or to the same degree, happening in the US.
Tens of millions of Americans, usually supporters of the 2nd, have openly declared that having a firearm on you while at a protest is a crime punishable by death, and have done nothing to stand up against Trump, who has openly declared his hostility to the 2nd amendment multiple times now.
Bringing a rifle to a protest you expect to get hot, brandishing it about, and then shooting someone in self defense is perfectly fine, but having an every day carry firearm, getting held down by the president's personal paramilitary org, and being shot execution style is apparently fine.
I'm sick and tired of the stupid claims about how important the 2nd is while the very advocates of it only bring it up to talk about how much they want to shoot democrats.
There's idiots on all sides. Plenty of sane people who are too busy working and raising families instead of loudly participating in politics that still hold a balanced view on the subject.
I can hold the situation you cited as an example that should be shown in training in how not to handle a situation like that while at the same time vehemently pushing back against the bureaucrats trying to disarm me. It's why I've always identified as an independent my whole life.
That's called "luck".
A friend of mine did likewise, and got a knock, then handcuffs, then a trial. He was acquitted because everything he said was allowed under the first amendment. In fact, several academics had published the same/similar stuff he did and not had any problems (or ever worried about them). But he was of the wrong race/religion...
There was never a time in the 20th-21st century where you can practice your 1st amendment rights and be absolutely sure you wouldn't get a knock on your door.