Live data from Hacker News

Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

economist.com

91–100 of 192 posts

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

#91
post #36

The comparison is made with America's First Amendment, which is a valuable piece of legislation. How does the law in the US treat incitement to violence, as shown by some of the cases described, e.g. Among them were people who said things like “blow the mosque up” and “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards”. That probably would have been legal in America, says Gavin Phillipson of Bristol University,…

The person in question did not say the latter. You have, presumably deliberately, decontextualized it. She said roughly what you said followed by "for all I care", and she also deleted the post a few minutes after. (What some people may not understand: UK police are running a dragnet online now, it is unclear when this started but was in full force after Covid, you can post and immediately delete, you can post with f…

My question was more specific. I copied the quote from the Economist, a reliable publication.

So, assuming the posting was as written, would it fall under the "clear and imminent" criteria apparently used in the US?

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

#92
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are definitely problems, but at least you can criticise the speech laws. And fight to change them. In fact if you feel strongly about it you can do something about it. The article mentions the Free Speech Union in the UK. There is also the EFF in the USA. Democracy requires that we fight for it. Otherwise it will disappear. In dicatorships there is no opportunity to speak out.

you can criticize speech laws for now . And tbh, not sure to which extent it is true. There is no switch front democracy to dictatorship, there is a transition.

As they said:

> Democracy requires that we fight for it. Otherwise it will disappear.

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

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one voted for this. The police in the UK are using a combination of existing powers (for example, intimidating people by using their powers to question people), non-statutory instruments that politicians have told them repeatedly to stop using, and laws that are being applied to the online world in an expansive way (the current PM is the former head of government prosecutions so is basically the worst person possi…

The tories activly campaigned on the platform of regulating internet speech. > Windrush was one, there were many others mate, windrush was down to May and her spads. They knew the problems, but decided that the press was worth it. > the current level of immigration is supported by ~3% of the population Immigration has halved this year. The problem is that has tradeoffs, like social care isn't going work anymore. I un…

Exactly.

I would read about what actually happened. There were multiple failures in the Home Office, in particular some statistics were incorrectly reported by the Rudd (I am not sure why you are talking about May) based on figures she was told by civil servants, she then had to resign. Not only that but the correct figures were actually leaked to the press shortly after (this is something that has happened in the Home Office before).

Okay, and it has halved to the highest level ever. If you want to have ones of these interminable discussions about your favourite politicians, please stop. I am not interested in hearing which colour rosette you prefer, and how everything is the fault of the other guys. It is complete and total nonsense. The reason why we have the system we have is because it is too easy for a politician to claim they will fix everything (the drop in immigration is nothing to do with Starmer either, it was to do with the Tories whose legacy on immigration is unspeakable, it has halved to a level that is unbelievably high).

Yes, it is the fault of the civil service because, as I assume you don't understand, ministers legally have a limited set of options when they are making policy (this was one of the issues the Tories faced, Rwanda was a variation of a policy that had been explored since the early 2000s...it wasn't a new policy, which is why Labour are now going down the same route...we had an election, same policies). They come into office, explain to the civil servants what they want to do, and then they are given a choice of policies...if a minister chooses not to one of these things then the policy can later be challenged in the courts, and legal discovery can be used to overturn the policy if there is no legal basis for it (essentially, whether it was approved by the civil service).

Every new government comes in finding the same thing. You are already seeing people in Labour complain about Reeves...well, guess what? There are no alternatives. Your comment about Reform-lite is ridiculous, every party is Reform, every party is Labour, every party is the Tories. The game continues as long as people like you give it credibility by suggesting that voting has any impact and will change anything...it won't. A lot of the briefing that the press get is from the civil service too...I can't understand how you can talk about immigration and then complain about the press...why do you think Johnson increased immigration? The press, relentless briefing from lobbyists, relentless pressure from civil servants in the Home Office briefing against the government (the Home Office is notorious for this btw, as I just explained above, I remember Charles Clarke complaining about this...unbelivable).

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved.…

In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media. The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom. Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable…

> Police Scotland posted on its Twitter,

is a different body and has different laws to England.

The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications"

Actually is gross offense.

> speech and almost half of those were prosecuted.

For gross offense, or threatening communications? Because there is a world of difference. Its the same act that is used to procecute someone sending death threats as it is for "gross offense"

> jailed for posting emojis of an ethnic minority with an emoji of a gun.

yeah but you missed out the other bits. Like the photo it was attached to, the other words he wrote, and _when_ he wrote it

> for saying illegals should be mass-deported

yeah I couldnt find that one.

> Let's not pretend "due process" is worth a damn

It is worth a dam, because thats how law works.

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

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it's markedly less bad than the "hate speech" laws those laws require due process. the american immigration "charges" are not tested by courts. They are executive actions, that might be challenged if you are rich enough. The UK does not have "hate speech" laws. It never had, anyone who tells you otherwise is pulling your leg. What can happen is you can ask for a more harsh sentence if there is "hate" involved.…

In 2014, Police Scotland posted on its Twitter, "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated." Met Police have taken similar actions in pursuit of chilling effects on social media. The Communications Act prohibits what are at best vaguely-defined "offensive communications" and created Ofcom. Because of this ridiculous violation of inalienable…

"due process" is one part of justice, one that is administered by the courts (even if effected by the police/bailiffs). "allowing a law to stand" is another part of justice, one that is administered by the legislative.

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

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one voted for this. The police in the UK are using a combination of existing powers (for example, intimidating people by using their powers to question people), non-statutory instruments that politicians have told them repeatedly to stop using, and laws that are being applied to the online world in an expansive way (the current PM is the former head of government prosecutions so is basically the worst person possi…

I'm not sure it can be attributed to political parties in the UK. By most standards, the British political tradition has remained paternalistic in it's mindset, and a lot of the shifts in civil liberties happened fairly late (1980s-90s) and without the requisite judicial scaffolding being built in place. Furthermore, a lot of the same powers and institutions used for internal security during the Troubles were redeplo…

Yes, the Troubles are a huge factor, the security services play a huge and unwelcome part in our political process. I think I mentioned elsewhere, I assume most people are familiar with this but most of the media campaigns that accompany legislation are pushed by the police/security services.

Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it happened nearly ten years ago now, it went quiet for years and then suddenly sparked back up again, parents put out in front of the media...every time.

And it is a legacy of things like the Troubles where you have massive internal political instability and these kind of things become normal. These powers aren't formal though, it is all informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.

West Yorkshire Police tried to arrest an autistic child for saying a female police officer looked like her lesbian nana on private property. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66462895 No muddling of the law here, just pure police overreach.

Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask.

Either way tit for tat examples help nothing.

Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.

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

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> elected officials have limited powers to direct civil servants and cannot remove all but a handful of civil servants. On the other hand politicians frequently blame the civil servants as well. In reality, parliament is sovereign, if they really wanted to reform the civil service they could do it via changing the laws.

Okay...and you are presumably aware that every government since the 60s has tried to reform the Civil Service? And how has that gone? Parliament is not sovereign because this is an administrative issue. As I explained, elected officials have limited direct control over ministries. And an even bigger issue is that the Civil Service is unionized, so if you were actually looking to reform it wholesale then you would hav…

No system is perfect or never in need of reform, including the UK civil service.

However, recent attacks on the civil service from the political right are almost always a consequence of reality colliding with politics, i.e. the civil service pointing out that ministerial decisions may be unlawful, etc. There are legions of examples of this conflict arising under the previous Tory government.

As such, it is indeed within the power of parliament to change the law so that their political objectives may be met. It is not up to the civil service to break the law when that is convenient to ministers.

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

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it can be attributed to political parties in the UK. By most standards, the British political tradition has remained paternalistic in it's mindset, and a lot of the shifts in civil liberties happened fairly late (1980s-90s) and without the requisite judicial scaffolding being built in place. Furthermore, a lot of the same powers and institutions used for internal security during the Troubles were redeplo…

Yes, the Troubles are a huge factor, the security services play a huge and unwelcome part in our political process. I think I mentioned elsewhere, I assume most people are familiar with this but most of the media campaigns that accompany legislation are pushed by the police/security services. Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it ha…

> Online Safety Act was an example, there was a massive media campaign over multiple years. I believe the case that caused it happened nearly ten years ago now, it went quiet for years and then suddenly sparked back up again, parents put out in front of the media...every time.

That's actually a bit of a dumber story than that.

Basically, a well connected and knighted documentary maker (Beeban Kidron) made pornography regulation her sole personal mission after she became a mother.

The UK being a fairly small political playground and her significant network thanks to Miramax made it easy for her to lobby and get private and public support in the UK and California.

Once she was inducted in the House of Lords in 2012, she went gung ho lobbying for it.

> informal. If we are talking about Europe, you see the same thing in Germany (to an extent, in Germany there is a paranoia about political parties, different but historical context).

Yep. A lot of the Cold War era rules and regulations remain in place

Post reply on HN