Arrests for offensive Facebook and Twitter posts soar in London

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,458
Remember this next time someone says we should be more like Europe. I think Tommy was the straw that broke the camel's back. We are going to see something big happen soon.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nd-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html


The number of people being arrested for “online crimes of speech” have increased dramatically in London.

While arrests for aggressive, threatening or hateful speech on social media declined between 2010 and 2013, the numbers rose last year.


According to the Register, a total of 2,500 Londoners have been arrested over the past five years for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media. In 2015, 857 people were detained, up 37 per cent increase since 2010.
 
Well its nice to know they have their priorities straight...
 
If only we could make a country with the best qualities of America and the best qualities of Europe, and no qualities of the left.

One can dream...
 
Would like to see what some of these messages look like
 
Europe is slowly demasculating all their men, and enforcing some 1984 type shit. Since it's in London obviously that retard Sadiq Khan has something to do with it. I assume it's only memes and posts that offend liberals and muslims.
 
I was just reading that London's crime rate now exceeds that of NY, if true, this is even more embarrassing than it already is.
 
Would like to see what some of these messages look like

Most of the ones I’ve seen are shockingly mild. Like I saw one after a terrorist had killed people with a car and a guy was basically like “we need to have a serious discussion about Islam” and that just set off a shit storm of liberals saying they had reported him, calling him racist, telling him to enjoy is time in jail, shit like that.

You’d actually probably be fairly surprised, almost none of it is violent and truly hateful stuff.
 
I wonder what Mr. Khan would think about a Mohammed balloon...

 
Last edited:
For my policy tastes it's unfortunate but you know, @alanb, as well as anyone, that British speech laws have always been much, much less liberal than the United States' dating back to the very beginnings of our republic, before First Amendment jurisprudence was even a thing yet. That's why basically the only times the US courts have refused to grant comity to UK judgments have been in the area of libel.

It's nothing new, and free speech has never been the staple in British culture that it is in the US. That's not to say it's like China, but you know what I mean.

Also, in terms of genuinely fake information, particularly in the area of group libel, there's a good chance that the internet age will force American courts to make some concessions on the First Amendment as well to salvage our democracy.
 
Last edited:
everyone knows liberals hate free speech

I'll just copy and paste my previous post for all of your political illiterates, foregoing the fact that liberals created free speech itself, while conservatives (at that time monarchists: see the Tories in the UK) opposed it at every corner of Western history.


Here is the First Amendment jurisprudential makeup of the Supreme Court, laid out by ideology. The percentage is the percentage of cases in which the Justice sides with the individual's right to free speech.

Sotomayor (1st most liberal) - 67%
Ginsburgh (2nd most liberal) - 69.4% - protects free speech rights most often
Breyer (3rd most liberal) - 55.8%
Kagan (4th most liberal) - 68%

Kennedy (5th most conservative) - 46%
Roberts (4th most conservative) - 50%
Scalia (3rd most conservative - 30.5% - protects free speech rights least often
Alito (2nd most conservative) - 39%
Thomas (1st most conservative) - 32.2%


http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/justicesdata.html


Likewise, you can go back through all of American jurisprudence on free speech (1A claims by citizens really didn't become a thing until the 1920s) and see it has always been the liberals (Brandeis, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall) who have protected free speech, and it has always been the conservatives (Harlan, Burger, McReynolds) who have opposed it.

Reality. Become acquainted with it.
 
I was just reading that London's crime rate now exceeds that of NY, if true, this is even more embarrassing than it already is.

No worries, they'll shuffle some definitions around, stop recording ethnicities of perpetrators, ban sporks, control for shoe size and amount of books read, and the crime rates will even out and multiculturalism will reign supreme.
 
I'll just copy and paste my previous post for all of your political illiterates, foregoing the fact that liberals created free speech itself, while conservatives (at that time monarchists: see the Tories in the UK) opposed it at every corner of Western history.


Here is the First Amendment jurisprudential makeup of the Supreme Court, laid out by ideology. The percentage is the percentage of cases in which the Justice sides with the individual's right to free speech.

Sotomayor (1st most liberal) - 67%
Ginsburgh (2nd most liberal) - 69.4% - protects free speech rights most often
Breyer (3rd most liberal) - 55.8%
Kagan (4th most liberal) - 68%

Kennedy (5th most conservative) - 46%
Roberts (4th most conservative) - 50%
Scalia (3rd most conservative - 30.5% - protects free speech rights least often
Alito (2nd most conservative) - 39%
Thomas (1st most conservative) - 32.2%


http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/justicesdata.html


Likewise, you can go back through all of American jurisprudence on free speech (1A claims by citizens really didn't become a thing until the 1920s) and see it has always been the liberals (Brandeis, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall) who have protected free speech, and it has always been the conservatives (Harlan, Burger, McReynolds) who have opposed it.

Reality. Become acquainted with it.

Is calling Trump "orange hitler" free speech or hate speech?
 
I was just reading that London's crime rate now exceeds that of NY, if true, this is even more embarrassing than it already is.
I think there's a connection between high crime rates and policing things that are none of the police's business. On the one hand, the crime rate is high because the cops are focused on the wrong stuff. On the other, as the crime rate soars, the police feel pressure to show they are doing something and they are either unwilling or unable to do anything about the real problem..
 
Is calling Trump "orange hitler" free speech or hate speech?

In the UK? No idea.

In the United States, it's free speech. We don't have "hate speech" laws at all.

EDIT: Actually, I do know, haha. No, that's not hate speech, because it's directed at a single person. Maybe, maybe it could be criminalized as defamation. But hate speech would be something like "all white men from New York are vermin and need to be exterminated."
 
Last edited:
"Trump is a dangerous fascist", say the folks arresting people for wrongthink.
 
Back
Top