British Cops Threaten to Prosecute People Who Critique Their Weed Bust Posts on Facebook

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,459


The tyranny is getting strong in England friends and this is why we need to defend the Constitution. People who speak out about the police are being threatened with jail time.

http://theantimedia.com/cops-prosecute-weed-bust-trolls/
West Yorkshire, U.K.
– American police often meet the wrath of trolls when they brag online about arrests for cannabis. Sometimes they delete the comments, but they often leave internet users’ roasts of their practices intact. In the U.K., however, one police station has not only admitted to banning users from the page for criticizing a marijuana arrest — they’re threatening prosecution.

In a post made Thursday morning, the West Yorkshire Police-Wakefield Rural wrote:

“***Cannabis Seized***

“PCSO 687 Ian Campbell and PCSO 882 Ben Hughes attended Walton colliery nature park and seized a small quantity of Cannabis from a young man who was parked up alone.



Like eBay, but Everything Sells in 90 Seconds
Tophatter

Ad by Revcontent

Find Out More >
90,094
“Walton Colliery nature park will be firmly on our patrol plan in the future to prevent this behaviour.

In what appears to be an update to the post, Police Inspector Martin Moizer issued a stern warning to internet hecklers. “Unfortunately we have had to ban a number of people from using this page today,” he wrote. “I would like to remind everyone that this is a Police page and whatever your thoughts on one of my officers seizing drugs in the community, being insulting, abusive or offensive can and will result in a prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.




The Malicious Communications Act predates the digital age but nonetheless has bused to target offensive behavior or statements online. In 2014, the U.K. government amended it to make it more stringent and applicable to internet activity, notifying the public of the changes:

The government is changing the law to increase the maximum sentence for the offence of sending certain items with the intent to cause distress or anxiety. This will mean more serious offences can be dealt with in the Crown Court and there will not be a time limit for police and Crown Prosecution Service to bring a prosecution.

“Alongside this, the government is also changing the law to allow up to 3 years, as opposed to 6 months as previously, to bring prosecutions against people for using the internet, social media or mobile phones to send menacing messages.”

According to that notice, “The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill amends section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to make the offence an either-way offence with a maximum penalty on conviction on in the Crown Court of 2 years imprisonment.

The government made it clear that the offense “covers sending a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to another person, which is in nature, or which conveys a message which is, indecent or grossly offensive, or conveys a threat or false information, with the purpose of causing distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom it is intended that its contents should be communicated.”

Concerns about the broad definition of “grossly offensive” have surrounded the policy, and nowhere is this more apparent than the West Yorkshire police reaction to trolls. After articulating the failed ideology of the drug war, Moizer warned commenters they could be prosecuted:

We will not overlook the significant harm that illegal drugs cause to our communities. We know from experience that this can progress from using what are perceived to be recreational drugs to more addictive and harmful substances and the resulting criminality used to fund their continued use.

Please use this page with respect or you will be banned and maybe even prosecuted.”

Here are some of the comments on the cannabis bust and the police department’s reaction to criticism of it:

cop-charge-1.png


cop-charge-2.png


cop-charge-3.png


cop-charge-4.png


cop-charge-5.png


cop-charge-6.png


cop-charge-7.png


cop-charge-8.png


cop-charge-9.png


cop-charge-10.png


cop-charge-11.png


In addition to the 1988 law, the 2003 Communications Act has seen prosecutions for internet trolling skyrocket. Citing official statistics, the Telegraph noted that in 2014, “1,209 people were found guilty of offences under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 – equivalent to three every day – compared to 143 in 2004.

The British government is well-known for its Big Brother intrusive surveillance tactics, and last year, Prime Minister Theresa May introduced a new plan to strictly monitor and regulate the internet that would impose “huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online,” the Independent reported.

As far as cannabis is concerned, the British government’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) acknowledged in 2016 that cannabidiol (CBD) had medical benefits, but cannabis remains illegal in the country despite the recent news that the U.K. is the world’s largest producer of the plant
 
Is normal when you give up your most foundational right, and concentrate weaponry and the ultimate power it provides in the possession of a small group of people.
 
We should probably declare our independence from England before this gets out of hand
 
We need to be more like the UK they are so tolerant
 
Outlawing criticism of laws is a step towards totalitarianism. Nice work if you want to turn into CCCP v2.0.
 
Last edited:
One random cop makes a post on Facebook and "the tyranny is getting strong in England."
 
One random cop makes a post on Facebook and "the tyranny is getting strong in England."

This is part of a larger pattern. They are actively banning political parties and are putting people in jail for assembly. Even teaching a your dog a trick can get you in jail if it offend the police
 
No, I'm just pointing out an over reaction.

additionally if this was not part of a systemic problem the lone officer would have been reprimanded for chilling free speech yet the threat goes on.
 
additionally if this was not part of a systemic problem the lone officer would have been reprimanded for chilling free speech yet the threat goes on.

How is this a systemic problem?
 
How is this a systemic problem?

Typically when law enforcement go outside of department policy their actions are somehow nullified by their department. Just like with issues we have with police brutality here, the higher ups in England are okaying this public display of censorship. Between that and the other examples I noted in my other post that is enough evidence to show there is a systemic problem of censorship. Imagine being put in jail for joining a political party.

Here is the Mayor of London calling for a crack down on free speech

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/reject-mayor-sadiq-khans-call-for-restricting-free-speech




Mayor of London Sadiq Khan delivered a remarkable speech at the South by Southwest, or SXSW, conference on Monday — remarkable for bad reasons, not good ones. He said that he wants social media companies to crack down on free speech.

Following his speech, Khan was interviewed by HuffPost editor Lydia Polgreen, who at one point asked how we can be "better citizens in our global democracy" (and people wonder why Trump won!), Khan offered thoughts on Trump and his war on Uber. But the most telling moment came when the mayor stated that "As a former human rights lawyer, I'm a big advocate of free speech. This isn't about depriving people of free speech, this is about inciting hatred."

Here Khan, inadvertently, shows his minds eye, because "inciting hatred" means very different things in Britain and the United States. And the inherently subjective nature of that definition explains why it rightly is not restricted in America. We reject self-censorship on debates of public concern. Yet Khan's demand cannot simply be ignored.


After all, social media companies operate at a global level, offering instant communication between users in London, Lagos, Berlin, Baghdad, and Kansas City. And that's keenly relevant in the context of this line in Khan's SXSW speech.

"What we need to see is a stronger duty of care so that social media platforms can live up to their promises to be places that connect, unify and democratize the sharing of information." Khan continued, "And be places where everyone feels welcomed and values. If this doesn’t happen, then more countries will start to follow or go further than what Germany has done."

Here Khan is referring to Germany's waltz with its past, in clamping down on speech that breaches the constraint of authoritarian orthodoxy. But what Khan really wants is for social media companies to subjugate their content standards to European legal codes. That would smash, to borrow from Polgreen, "our global democracy." Social media companies cannot efficiently restrict speech in Berlin but not in Baltimore? Yes, it could technically be done, but the costs would be dramatic and the benefits negligible. It would slow down the speed of information sharing, lead to self-censorship and thus fundamentally undercut the existential purpose of social media companies.

That concern, not deluded laziness, is why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to undertake the action Khan seeks. Still, Khan's ignominious wrath is arrogantly misplaced even in its motivation. According to the mayor, unless we take his advice, social media speech will "lead to young people becoming socially disenfranchised," and deterred against seeking public office. Referencing the abuse he himself has received on Twitter, Khan asserted that it "shouldn't be a question of how strong I am or whether I can withstand that..." but instead that social media companies can restrict that speech.

I fundamentally disagree. If you are a politician, journalist or any other public figure, you must accept that the virtues and benefits of a free society are far more important than your own hurt feelings and personal discomfort. Put simply, you should have the intellectual courage to withstand the unpleasantness that sometimes rides the wave of vigorous public discourse. The greatest extremist threat we face is not that of the mindless bigot, but that of the politician who seeks restrictions on what can be said and seen on matters of public concern. Fortunately, the founding fathers of the U.S. understood this and established a constitution to defend against it. From time to time — as now — it becomes evident that this was a very good idea
 
Typically when law enforcement go outside of department policy their actions are somehow nullified by their department. Just like with issues we have with police brutality here, the higher ups in England are okaying this public display of censorship. Between that and the other examples I noted in my other post that is enough evidence to show there is a systemic problem of censorship. Imagine being put in jail for joining a political party.

Here is the Mayor of London calling for a crack down on free speech

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/reject-mayor-sadiq-khans-call-for-restricting-free-speech




Mayor of London Sadiq Khan delivered a remarkable speech at the South by Southwest, or SXSW, conference on Monday — remarkable for bad reasons, not good ones. He said that he wants social media companies to crack down on free speech.

Following his speech, Khan was interviewed by HuffPost editor Lydia Polgreen, who at one point asked how we can be "better citizens in our global democracy" (and people wonder why Trump won!), Khan offered thoughts on Trump and his war on Uber. But the most telling moment came when the mayor stated that "As a former human rights lawyer, I'm a big advocate of free speech. This isn't about depriving people of free speech, this is about inciting hatred."

Here Khan, inadvertently, shows his minds eye, because "inciting hatred" means very different things in Britain and the United States. And the inherently subjective nature of that definition explains why it rightly is not restricted in America. We reject self-censorship on debates of public concern. Yet Khan's demand cannot simply be ignored.


After all, social media companies operate at a global level, offering instant communication between users in London, Lagos, Berlin, Baghdad, and Kansas City. And that's keenly relevant in the context of this line in Khan's SXSW speech.

"What we need to see is a stronger duty of care so that social media platforms can live up to their promises to be places that connect, unify and democratize the sharing of information." Khan continued, "And be places where everyone feels welcomed and values. If this doesn’t happen, then more countries will start to follow or go further than what Germany has done."

Here Khan is referring to Germany's waltz with its past, in clamping down on speech that breaches the constraint of authoritarian orthodoxy. But what Khan really wants is for social media companies to subjugate their content standards to European legal codes. That would smash, to borrow from Polgreen, "our global democracy." Social media companies cannot efficiently restrict speech in Berlin but not in Baltimore? Yes, it could technically be done, but the costs would be dramatic and the benefits negligible. It would slow down the speed of information sharing, lead to self-censorship and thus fundamentally undercut the existential purpose of social media companies.

That concern, not deluded laziness, is why Twitter and Facebook are so reluctant to undertake the action Khan seeks. Still, Khan's ignominious wrath is arrogantly misplaced even in its motivation. According to the mayor, unless we take his advice, social media speech will "lead to young people becoming socially disenfranchised," and deterred against seeking public office. Referencing the abuse he himself has received on Twitter, Khan asserted that it "shouldn't be a question of how strong I am or whether I can withstand that..." but instead that social media companies can restrict that speech.

I fundamentally disagree. If you are a politician, journalist or any other public figure, you must accept that the virtues and benefits of a free society are far more important than your own hurt feelings and personal discomfort. Put simply, you should have the intellectual courage to withstand the unpleasantness that sometimes rides the wave of vigorous public discourse. The greatest extremist threat we face is not that of the mindless bigot, but that of the politician who seeks restrictions on what can be said and seen on matters of public concern. Fortunately, the founding fathers of the U.S. understood this and established a constitution to defend against it. From time to time — as now — it becomes evident that this was a very good idea

You're pointing to one off comments as "systemic tyranny". How is this any different than what happens in the US? For instance, cops in the US have said dumb shit on Facebook and Ttump has made numerous comments that, if followed tgrough, would violate laws. However, I don't see you up in arms about that.
 
Do any British cops post here?

[<cena1}
 
You're pointing to one off comments as "systemic tyranny". How is this any different than what happens in the US? For instance, cops in the US have said dumb shit on Facebook and Ttump has made numerous comments that, if followed tgrough, would violate laws. However, I don't see you up in arms about that.

For starters people don't get arrested for teaching their dog Nazi salute tricks here.... yet.
 
Last edited:
You're pointing to one off comments as "systemic tyranny". How is this any different than what happens in the US? For instance, cops in the US have said dumb shit on Facebook and Ttump has made numerous comments that, if followed tgrough, would violate laws. However, I don't see you up in arms about that.

I've litigated two federal lawsuits on banning users from government facebook pages and deletion of posts.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...-Pay-31K-over-Censored-Facebook-Comments.aspx
After two years of litigation, a Honolulu Federal Court is ordering the Honolulu Police Department to pay $31K in attorneys fees to Second Amendment activists who sued alleging First Amendment violations after the HPD allegedly removed plaintiffs Facebook comments from an HPDFacebook page.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-sheriff-facebook-lawsuit-settle-karras-2015feb20-story.html

"Settlement talks began a few weeks ago, and both parties agreed to dismiss the lawsuit, with the county paying about $23,000 in attorney’s fees and $20 to Karras, according to one of his lawyers, Alan Beck."



I swore an oath to defend the Constitution when I enlisted. I maintain that oath as a civilian.
 
Who adds the police department as their friends on Facebook?
I don't get it.
 
Back
Top