Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 192 posts

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#181

Post by KaiserPro »

landl0rd wrote: post #176
KaiserPro wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was the one jailed for her comments The one that fanned huge fucking protests, the one that caused a massive spike in violence, many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage? That old poor innocent councillors wife? Britain and the US are very different. In the same way that a lot of americans think that school shootings are a fair exchange for second amendment rights, this is a fair exchange for not having…

Right I am not actually interested in whether it was legal under british law. My point is british law is unjust and fundamentally illiberal in this respect. Anything that wouldn't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of "imminent lawless action" is unconscionably bad. All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... This is from The Ec…

> can you explain the other 29 arrests that day

No because I'm trying to find where that stat comes from. Also as I've pointed out, gross offence is only one offence, the communications act also covered fraud and a whole bunch of other things that are much less contentious.

> own the rightoids"

The extremes don't care about justice, only logical fallacies and being technically correct in the eyes of their peers.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#182

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

cobbzilla wrote: post #164
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you on about? The PSPO specifically prohibited activity in favour or against abortion services, including protests, harassment and vigils. He was blatantly holding a vigil and even then, I expect he could have just moved on when asked and faced no charges. Reading a newspaper would be fine, obviously, unless he specifically concocted his own newspaper with slogans on it which would then surely be a protest o…

What if it was a regular newspaper, but secretly he was praying and not actually reading the paper. Is he a criminal?

The whole point of the PSPO is to protect the people who are considering using abortion services. If someone is "secretly" doing something, then it's not likely to be harassing others and so wouldn't be illegal under the terms of PSPO.

It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular incident would not have happened if the individual was praying somewhere else or not making a particular point about praying exactly where it would harass people using the clinic.

It's fine to have religious beliefs, but it's not fine to go around imposing those beliefs on others - that's how a lot of wars get started.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#183

Post by acquisitionsilk »

chairmansteve wrote: post #168
ayrtondesozzla wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can criticise things, but if you are effective, or if you criticise the wrong thing, you risk jail, harassment, ostracisation, threats, campaigns of vilification and slander, etc. Your doctor visits and lawyer visits will be surveilled, your basic diplomatic rights violated. You can be tortured in public view. Wikileaks' Julian Assange is perhaps the archetypal recent example, but there are others. Westminster ha…

Yes. Westminster has become more autoritarian. But Julian Assange is not a good example, for many reasons. He didn't just criticise the government. He broke laws. Maybe for good reason. Are there any examples in the UK of people being jailed for simply criticising the government? Excluding hate speech and civil disobedience?

[dead]

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#184

Post by acquisitionsilk »

techright75 wrote: post #159
postepowanieadm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be more specific: not criticizing Israel per se, only criminal actions of the current government.

No criminal actions whatsoever. A nation has a right to strike back when it is attacked by a foreign nation using any means it deems necessary for that type of attack to never happen again.

[dead]

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#185

Post by account-5 »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #180
account-5 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I'm sure she can. But that is surely besides the point?

> But that is surely besides the point? The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for. But also, her not getting arrested does the same. So she was in a win-win position.

At the time they really didn't, the underlying issue was recently decided in the Supreme Court.

But yes I get and agree with your point. And it also highlights an important aspect often ignored in all this. The courts decide a person's guilt irrespective of police action, case law builds up around laws that are broad and easy to misinterprete.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#186

Post by cobbzilla »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #182
cobbzilla wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it was a regular newspaper, but secretly he was praying and not actually reading the paper. Is he a criminal?

The whole point of the PSPO is to protect the people who are considering using abortion services. If someone is "secretly" doing something, then it's not likely to be harassing others and so wouldn't be illegal under the terms of PSPO. It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular…

If I stand in a particular spot and do nothing, it’s OK. Now I do exactly the same thing, except beforehand I say I’ll be thinking a forbidden thought while doing it. My previously legal action is now illegal because I am imposing my religious beliefs on you. Am I understanding correctly?

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#187

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

cobbzilla wrote: post #186
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the PSPO is to protect the people who are considering using abortion services. If someone is "secretly" doing something, then it's not likely to be harassing others and so wouldn't be illegal under the terms of PSPO. It's not a difficult concept to understand and nothing to do with trying to police people's thought, but merely stopping the harassment that would otherwise take place. This particular…

If I stand in a particular spot and do nothing, it’s OK. Now I do exactly the same thing, except beforehand I say I’ll be thinking a forbidden thought while doing it. My previously legal action is now illegal because I am imposing my religious beliefs on you. Am I understanding correctly?

I would imagine that he made the act of praying to be noticeable to others to act as a protest (e.g. typical head bowed and hands together). If he was simply standing there and minding his own business, then I can't see why there would have been any issue. The idea is that people should be allowed to make use of the health services without feeling undue pressure from others - it's typically a very difficult time for the people involved.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#188

Post by ethbr1 »

onetimeusename wrote: post #179
ethbr1 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are determined not by elected officials but by bureaucrats and judges/lawyers who it turns out are often on the same side "Fixing" that is an awfully slippery slope towards dictatorship though. The entire reason that system exists -- to preserve competence and skills in government despite political leadership change and to provide independent checks on elected officials' power -- is because of historical abuses by…

I am concerned about how lawyers may be a closed off group. Especially with grads from the top law schools who often work at NGOs or become judges in high courts that end up deciding major things. I think precedent could be set in a way that reflects the tastes of a small and detached group of people.

That's literally what we want in a rule of law system -- people more beholden to the legal system than to common concerns of voters.

Put another way, the role of the legal system is to be a linter for the messy / incomplete / illegal reality of legislative and executive desires.

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#189

Post by onetimeusename »

ethbr1 wrote: post #188
onetimeusename wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am concerned about how lawyers may be a closed off group. Especially with grads from the top law schools who often work at NGOs or become judges in high courts that end up deciding major things. I think precedent could be set in a way that reflects the tastes of a small and detached group of people.

That's literally what we want in a rule of law system -- people more beholden to the legal system than to common concerns of voters. Put another way, the role of the legal system is to be a linter for the messy / incomplete / illegal reality of legislative and executive desires.

ok I think being independent is fine, what I meant was a little different. Let me just ask you something instead which might clarify my thoughts. What did you have in mind when you said dictatorship? Like what is the historical precedent you are basing that on?

Re: Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

#190

Post by zugi »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #141
zugi wrote: post #24

> The public might well question why so much time is spent on this, while burglaries routinely go unsolved. I'd offer yet another explanation: laziness. For burglaries, you have to get out of your chair, go out into the community, interview witnesses, search for evidence, and maybe wander into dangerous areas to find and arrest potentially violent suspects. For internet thought crimes, you can sit in the comfort of y…

The other side of that coin is that burglaries are limited in that the criminals have to physically be present to commit the crime and that puts a hard limit on the number of victims. Posting incitements to commit violence on the internet is not inherently limited and can easily provoke riots based on complete falsehoods. There's also the much more dangerous issue of destroying democracy by misleading a large number…

Misleading voters is what democracy is all about!

But more seriously, society has dealt with misinformation and disinformation for millenia and collectively decided that freedom of speech and the press were key factors in keeping democracy, and were a more vital concern than the threat of misinformation. To me, government deciding what is or isn't misinformation is a step away from democracy and towards tyranny. But I do understand that reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the fine lines of freedom of speech.

Post reply on HN