Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

United Kingdom

Britain Turns Offensive Speech Into a Police Matter

The nation that gave the world John Milton and his cry for the "liberty to utter" is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.

Brendan O'Neill | 9.15.2018 7:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
|||Flynt/Dreamstime.com
Flynt/Dreamstime.com

Which country's police force just called on its citizens to report offensive speech? Not libelous speech or death-threat speech, just plain old insulting speech. Speech that is merely hurtful or hateful. Which nation's cops instructed the citizenry to snitch on haters?

North Korea? China? Maybe Turkey?

It was Britain. Yes, Britain has become a nation in which offensive speech can become a police matter. Where, in April this year, a 19-year-old woman was convicted of sending a "grossly offensive" message after she posted rap lyrics that included the N-word on her Instagram page. Where, also in April, a Scottish shitposter was found guilty of a hate crime for teaching a pug to do a Nazi salute and posting the footage on YouTube. Where in recent years individuals have been arrested and in some cases imprisoned for making racist comments or just cracking tasteless jokes on Twitter.

This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the "liberty to utter," is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.

The latest Orwellian invitation to rat out offensive speakers was issued by the South Yorkshire Police.

These clearly time-rich coppers took to Twitter to remind people that "HateHurts". That was their actual hashtag. I'm sure hate can hurt, but not nearly as much as being burgled or beaten up or whatever other crimes these cops are probably missing as they trawl Twitter for rudeness.

"In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents," they pleaded. These non-crimes include "things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing."

It is chilling that cops, whose only business should be fighting crime, now want to hear about non-crime. Anyone who has even a sliver of respect for the ideal of liberty, for the right of people to go about their lives without being watched or narked on, should be seriously concerned that cops would want to hear about non-criminal behavior, otherwise known as everyday behavior.

Even more perversely, these non-crimes really just mean "insulting comments." So if you're in Yorkshire and someone on Facebook calls you a fat slob, call the cops. If you wear a niqab and a work colleague tells you—a la Boris Johnson—that you look a little bit like a mailbox, phone the police.

In essence, South Yorkshire Police want people to report on everyday conversations. This is Stasi territory. Coppers asking citizens to file reports on things they have read or overheard really should have disappeared from Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet here it still is, this GDR-style instruction to eavesdrop and squeal, though now it's happening on the other side of the old Iron Curtain.

It is testament to how entrenched censorship has become in 21st-century Britain that a police force can so casually call for reports about speech.

This is a country whose communications laws and public-order legislation can be, and regularly are, used to punish hateful expression. Last year The Times reported that British police are arresting nine people a day for posting "offensive messages online." In 2016, 3,300 people were detained and questioned for things they said online. In some parts of Britain the arrest rate for offensive speech has risen by nearly 900% in recent years. We Brits are sleepwalking into a police state.

Not content with punishing people for the offensive things they say on public online platforms, now there are moves afoot to punish them for what they say privately too. This week the Labour MP Lucy Powell put forward a Bill in parliament that would ban private online discussion forums because, she says, hate speech can fester in these "echo chambers." Why not go the whole hog and mic us all up so that you can hear what we're saying at all times of the day?

The South Yorkshire call for information about "non-crimes" caused a stink in the media here in Britain, which is good. Yet while these cops' declaration of war against offensive speech may have been shocking, it wasn't surprising. It is the logical next step in Britain's ever-expanding empire of hate-policing.

We have laws that criminalize hate. We have laws against being grossly offensive. We have hate-crime laws, which mean that if you commit a crime with hatred in your mind, then you might get a stiffer punishment. Punch a Buddhist because you hate Buddhism, and you could get a longer sentence than if you punch him simply because you dislike that particular Buddhist.

This is the policing of thought. The policing of ideology.

The policing and punishment of hate by officialdom should never be acceptable. Hatred is a feeling, a sensation, a thing of the mind, and that area of life must always be off-limits to the authorities. South Yorkshire Police, here's some offensive speech for you: Fuck you and your Stasi tribute act.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The FDA's 'Added Sugar' Labeling Rule Is Sugar-Coated Nonsense

Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked in London.

United KingdomHate SpeechPolice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (98)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. BigT   7 years ago

    Hate crimes are thought crimes. Isn't this 34 years out of fashion?

  2. Mickey Rat   7 years ago

    And this is what you get with an unwritten constitution and not explicitly protected rights combined with an enervated public.

    1. Walk_on_Walter   7 years ago

      A written constitution is not much better protection. See also "USA."

      1. Fancylad   7 years ago

        Allowing Judges to interpret it however they wish was a mistake.
        Here in Canada, our Supreme Court has "interpreted" religious freedom, as pretty much the opposite of religious freedom.

      2. Scarecrow Repair & Chippering   7 years ago

        Yes, the USA has had hate crime legislation for some time. I wonder if we taught it to the UK, was it the other way round, or did both think it up independently? It is a very natural outcome of governments and politically correct fashions.

        1. Mark22   7 years ago

          The US does not criminalize hate speech; the US uses hate speech, i.e., intent, in the determination of punishment for other crimes.

          That may or may not be a good idea, but it started long before hate crime legislation: intent matters for distinctions as basic as that between murder and manslaughter.

      3. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

        So far hate crimes have not been expanded to speech.

    2. DJF   7 years ago

      I think that a bigger problem is that the British are subjects, not citizens.

      They must obey the Queen and her government. The Home Secretary has control of police and security

      1. Agammamon   7 years ago

        And you don't have to obey the President and his government?

        There is functionally no difference.

        1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

          In America, we vote our lizard into office.

          1. Rat on a train   7 years ago

            Choose the form of the destructor.

        2. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

          No, no one has to obey the President as a private citizen. However, if you work for the government, the President is your boss, so during work hours you are required to follow them, or I'd it is work related. If President Trump's told me I have to wear green tomorrow I could tell him to go fuck himself and have no repercussions. The Government is not able to make rules or laws that hinder my natural born rights. While it is true they have, I also have the ability to challenge these laws in court. And have at least a 50/50 chance of being freed if the courts rule such laws violate my rights. Unfortunately, the courts have been stacked against individual citizens but we are starting to see some reversal of this trend. It is why we are a republic and not a democracy. Out system is set up so that the people can correct the government, but also set up so that super population centers do not get the final say. It isn't perfect but far better than a parliamentary system with a monarchy.

          1. Agammamon   7 years ago

            1. Yes, private citizens are required to obey the lawful orders of the President.

            2. 'Work for the government' doesn't mean that. Not only are there different levels of government - a county employee is not a subordinate but even inside the Federal government, Legislative and Judicial branch employees are not subordinates of the President either.

            3. "The Government is not able to make rules or laws that hinder my natural born rights." Except for the tons of laws that already restrict your rights.

            4. The only difference, funtionally, between the US and UK is that the US has a written constitution and a greater attachment to individual liberty over the collective than the UK culture has.

            1. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

              1. No, civilians are not required to follow the orders of the President. The President can not go up to a private citizen and give them a direct order and force them to follow it.
              2. Kind of proves my point.
              3. I admitted that legislation does exist, however, I also pointed out we, as citizens, have the means to challenge those laws.
              4. Proves my point again.

      2. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

        This is ironic, because the Queen rules thanks to the DNA she inherited from the leader of the ethnic group that successfully colonized England in 1066.

        1. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

          Actually, for the most part, her heritage is mainly German, it wasn't until the last couple of her Grandmother was the first English woman in the family line (her great grandmother was Danish and the rest of the royal spouses prior to that were German as was the royal family).

          1. Sevo   7 years ago

            Pretty sure "War of the Roses" makes it 'way more complicated than that:
            https://www.amazon.com/Wars-Roses-
            Fall-Plantagenets-Tudors/dp/
            0143127888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books
            &ie=UTF8&qid=1537068139&sr=1
            -1&keywords=war+of+the+roses+dan+jones

            1. ThomasD   7 years ago

              House 'Windsor' (actually Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) had effectively nothing to do with the War of the Roses.

            2. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

              The house of Windsor is German and wasn't involved in the War of the Roses. They did not obtain the throne until George the 1st was coronated on the 20th of October, 1714.

              1. soldiermedic76   7 years ago

                The house of Tudor hasn't been on the throne since 1603.

              2. Rat on a train   7 years ago

                George I was of the House of Hanover. The first Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/Windsor was Edward VII.

          2. vek   7 years ago

            All these are essentially correct.

            However it is worth pointing out that the Angles and the Saxons are in fact both Germanic tribes anyway... So it's a minor distinction. It'd be like bitching about having an Austrian running Germany! Well, come to think of it, that didn't work out terribly awesome last time Germany did that... But that's besides the point!

            Genetically, the royal family is probably slightly more Germanic than the average Englishmen, because a lot of the pre-Germanic invasion Celtic/Briton DNA still floats around in the population, but they're probably not a TON more Germanic.

        2. Thomas Sowell-cleaver   7 years ago

          "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. You can't expect to wield executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!" -Dennis the constitutional peasant, to King Arthur.

          Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

          -disturbingly relevant here.

    3. Last of the Shitlords   7 years ago

      The E Plebnista are holy words! Meant only for Chiefs, and sons of Chiefs!

    4. Oli   7 years ago

      The Constitution is nothing but a stack of papers, if the people in power choose to not adhere to it.

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        The people who work for government get their jobs from the Constitution's legal authority to carry out duties.

  3. Inigo Montoya   7 years ago

    I am 100% certain that there is an ulterior motive to all of this. Authorities are gearing up for what they actuallly want.

    Today it's reporting someone for calling you a fat slob, but tomorrow it will be someone criticizing politicians or accusing the police of brutality or corruption. The SJW stuff is just a smokescreen, it's really about ending dissent.

    1. BigT   7 years ago

      "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
      ? James Madison

    2. Last of the Shitlords   7 years ago

      The people of Britain should violently overthrow their socialist government.

      The handwringing and pantshitting from progtards on this side of the pond would be epic to watch.
      If.

      1. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

        +1

  4. BigT   7 years ago

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
    ? George Orwell

  5. Mark22   7 years ago

    This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the "liberty to utter," is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.

    When people make "great cries" for something, it's usually because they are lacking it. So, rather than telling you that the UK used to be a bastion of free speech but now is not, it tells you that free speech always was precarious in the UK.

    1. Walk_on_Walter   7 years ago

      The Areopagitica is from 1644, Einstein. That's almost four hundred years ago.

      1. Mark22   7 years ago

        The Areopagitica is from 1644, Einstein. That's almost four hundred years ago.

        So, Mr.-Born-Yesterday, Mr.-Culturally-Illiterate, do you think that culture doesn't persist for centuries? Do you really want to argue that between 1644 and now, free speech wasn't under frequent, serious attack in Britain? Do you really want to claim that German Nazism was an aberration lasting a couple of decades, rather than a centuries-long German tradition of anti-Semitism, collectivism, anti-capitalism, and Germanic superiority?

  6. Walk_on_Walter   7 years ago

    But they have such great health care! /sarc

    1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      hmmmm A single payer government run healthcare system from the government that thinks you should be punished for your words. What can go wrong with that? 😉

  7. BigT   7 years ago

    Um...

    "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
    ? United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    1. Eddy   7 years ago

      European Convention on Human Rights

      ARTICLE 10

      Freedom of expression

      1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

      2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      1. Eddy   7 years ago

        Paragraph 2 is a gigantic "BUT."

        They like big "but"s and they cannot lie.

        1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

          +1, Eddy

        2. BigT   7 years ago

          You are right. It's like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. I wasn't aware of Par 2.

      2. chipper me timbers   7 years ago

        You could accurately rephrase paragraph 2 as "Just kidding!"

      3. Sevo   7 years ago

        "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,"

        No, it does not.

      4. Cloudbuster   7 years ago

        So 2 utterly negates 1.

      5. Cloudbuster   7 years ago

        So 2 utterly negates 1.

    2. Scarecrow Repair & Chippering   7 years ago

      yeah, and the Soviet constitution promised freedom of speech, and the USSR was one of the founding members of the UN.

      Words don't mean squat when governments interpret them to define themselves.

  8. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

    HateHurts?

    StupidfascistassholeswhosuppressfreespeechHurts MORE.

  9. lap83   7 years ago

    Now that the UK knife ban has eliminated violent crime, the police have lots of extra time to work on eradicating violent crimethink

    1. cc2   7 years ago

      Since it is illegal to defend yourself, thugs simply knock on the door and when you answer they barge in, beat you and steal your stuff. Home invasions in UK are many times higher than in US.

  10. Scarecrow Repair & Chippering   7 years ago

    For your reading pleasure

  11. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   7 years ago

    As a left-libertarian, I wish Reason would have presented both sides of this issue. There is a compelling case to be made that hate speech does not deserve "free speech" protection. See, for example, Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky's Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America

    #LibertariansAgainstHateSpeech

    1. Fancylad   7 years ago

      "B-b-b-b-but nazis"
      Fuck off authoritarian slime, and take your poorly-reasoned, draconian agitprop article with you.

      1. Ecoli   7 years ago

        Don't be too upset with OBL.

        He (or she, or perhaps Xe) is a satirical troll, and a pretty good one. He merely showcases the absurdity of the progressive left.

        1. perlchpr   7 years ago

          This is generally how I decide he's done a great job. If my instinctive reaction is "Oh, fuck you..." then I know he hit the right nerve. 😀

      2. Don't look at me.   7 years ago

        That kind of crimetalk is going to get you in trouble.

    2. Ecoli   7 years ago

      Marxist-oriented... What a great starting point. Who are the "oppressors"?

      Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

      "political philosophy: Critical theory. Critical theory, a broad-based Marxist-oriented approach to the study of society, was first developed in the 1920s by the philosophers Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and? international relations: Constructivism. ?is formed by postmodernism and critical theory."

    3. Ecoli   7 years ago

      The Frankfurt School:

      https://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/

      "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

      The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut f?r Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City."

      This is why Jordan Peterson is a "phenomenon".

      1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

        Fun fact, my graduate research was an attempt to figure out the most effective way to spread memes.

    4. Ben of Houston   7 years ago

      I have to disagree. See the case mentioned above, where the man tried to make his dog a Nazi as a comedy act. The introduction said explicitly that he was trying to make his dog the worst thing in the world. He then proceeded to mock the entire thing for laughs. It was an act that would have gotten him executed under the Third Reich.

      Yet somehow it was decided that it was hate speech, and he was convicted and his appeal denied. For comedy.

      Now, consider the number of people who have actively said that disagreeing with political opinion X is hateful. (immigration policy comes to mind). You literally have a perfect opportunity to declare disagreement on a political issue criminal.

      Hate speech laws universally become censorship against unpopular opinions or criminalizes dissent.

    5. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      It's official. Free Speech is too old fashioned for the left.

    6. Mark22   7 years ago

      In their new book "Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy," they argue that in fact regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place.

      Good idea, let's do what the progressive Germans did. They had strong limits on free speech in order to protect fairness, sensible political discourse, and public order. In the 1920s. How did that work out?

  12. Rob Misek   7 years ago

    There's no money in protecting people's feelings. So why is the prosecution of hatred invading our freedoms?

    Hatred is undefined. Lobby groups with power and money intentionally intimidate governing bodies and courts to rule that anything that contradicts their agendas as hatred. To complete the circle, courts rule that the truth is no defence. So much for justice.

    Hatred is conflict, in speech represented ONLY by lies.

    But that's truth and inadmissible in this environment.

  13. perlchpr   7 years ago

    If you wear a niqab and a work colleague tells you?a la Boris Johnson?that you look a little bit like a mailbox, phone the police.

    "Hate? No, no! I'm actually sexually attracted to mail boxes!"

    1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      At the rate we're going there will be laws against sexual attraction before you know it.

      1. Last of the Shitlords   7 years ago

        Laws against heterosexual attraction. Not being receptive to a homo come on will be criminalized as hate speech.

        1. Fancylad   7 years ago

          "Stupid, white, male, cis-gendered, xtian bigots! Not offering up their brown stars for a rodgering upon request. They should be burned as heretics!"

    2. Mark22   7 years ago

      "Can I put my package in your mailbox?"

  14. Rich   7 years ago

    "In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents," they pleaded.

    "Somt bloke looked at me funny!"

    1. Rich   7 years ago

      *Some*

      *** gets coffee ***

  15. SusanM   7 years ago

    And he didn't mention Nazis once. Sounds like he's slipping.

  16. Francisco d'Anconia   7 years ago

    It could never happen here!

    1. Sevo   7 years ago

      I'm in SF. It sure could happen *here*!

  17. Benitacanova   7 years ago

    Fucking fathead bogbonking Brits!

    Whoops.

  18. Jerry B.   7 years ago

    Must remember that from now on, when in Britain, one should not signal something is okay with the fingers, lest a visiting American liberal accuse one of white supremacy dog-whistling.

    1. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

      Alternatively, one could spend time drinking coffee on Tyrone's couch the day before your flight. But I wouldn't wish that fate on any city. Miasma is a horrible thing.

  19. HANSENWT   7 years ago

    Shhhh.....if the Libs get a hold of this, we will probably start extraditing American offenders.

  20. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

    Yeah, when Reason posted about the British MP who wanted to violate freedom of expression and freedom of association, I commented some retorts in the relevant posts of her Facebook page. I think that was a week ago. A couple of days ago, I had a conversation with a detective from the New Jersey office of the Department of Homeland Security ...

    Long story short, that detective now knows the location of that off-Broadway drug den in Paterson. It's scary to think that the Department of Homeland security couldn't find a terrorist organization if the terrorists painted lines in the street to warn the cops to avoid that block.

  21. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

    a Scottish shitposter was found guilty of a hate crime for teaching a pug to do a Nazi salute and posting the footage on YouTube.

    I will admit that those memes I made of a singer accidentally giving a Nazi salute during the national UK Eurovision competition and defending that YouTuber were bad enough to make it into my "offensive" folder on my computer. My ass selfi pics are still in the "ass selfi pics" folder, and the Mohammed cartoons are still in the "Mohammed Cartoon" folder, but some graphics cross the boundary and make it into my "offensive" folder.

  22. sharmota4zeb   7 years ago

    It is testament to how entrenched censorship has become in 21st-century Britain that a police force can so casually call for reports about speech.

    European politicians are human. They like stay alive through the end of the day. They saw what life became like for Gerrt Wilders. Can you blame them for turning their backs on freedom?

  23. Mongo   7 years ago

    There's a reason why we rebeled against these monarchist scum.

    1. Sevo   7 years ago

      When we were in England several years ago, we decided to short our inheritors and stay in very expensive hotels. In England, that does not always imply "good", which is another issue.
      Regardless, we knew they were expensive as there were many visitors from near-Eastern (oil - I'm guessing) countries wearing watches the value of SF homes and the hotel bars dispensed as much coffee as booze.
      Wife was king enough to restrain me several times when I really wanted to shout "Take that damn rag off your head, lady!"
      I'd prolly be in the Tower.

      1. Mark22   7 years ago

        When we were in England several years ago, we decided to short our inheritors and stay in very expensive hotels. In England, that does not always imply "good", which is another issue.

        Money in England doesn't buy you luxury--the British are incapable of providing comfort, luxury, good taste, or even straight teeth--it buys you segregation from the riff-raff.

  24. Deconstructed Potato   7 years ago

    This week the Labour MP Lucy Powell put forward a Bill in parliament that would ban private online discussion forums because, she says, hate speech can fester in these "echo chambers."

    Great Scott. I clicked the link and read her piece and in her own words, she is absolutely proposing that without backing up any of her claims about these boogeymen of "hate", and she has bipartisan support from the slaver despots on both sides of the creepy old Hogwarts-like "corridors of power" those motherfuckers strut about in. It's definitely going to get passed. The UK really is a dystopian anti-liberty nightmare.

  25. geoffscameras   7 years ago

    16 September 2018. I've been arrested 3 times for Harassment over 6 years. The arrests were for truthful comments I have made by way of free speech on social media & in the public interest. Although the arrests were actually civil matters of alleged Defamation they were treated as criminal matters because a complainant felt Harassed by the comments. 2 of the arrests ended up in Court & the 2nd arrest was for Harassment with Violence but without a victim. Behind all 3 arrests were numerous Organisations which sought to gag me. Because the 1st arrest resulted in 4 police officers being reprimanded the police force engaged in malicious prosecution thereafter.

    The last arrest, which is ongoing, was flawed because the officer who arrested, interviewed & charged me was the same officer who I had complained about to the Chief Constable weeks before & which the PSD had since confirmed was due to be investigated. The investigation of 7 allegations against the officer have been suspended (sub judice) until after my trial. if I am found guilty the 3 computers removed from my home unlawfully due to the flawed arrest will be destroyed. Computers containing evidence against the Organisations & the police which have nothing to do with the complaint or the reasons of arrest. The complainant has since been partially discredited by the CPS after admitting the complainant was "incorrectly described" on a Welfare Panel in 2012 & did, with others, criminally abuse my late wife as a result.

    1. Stevecsd   7 years ago

      RE: government police destroying your computers. This is a good reason to keep your data in a cloud based storage system.

    2. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

      England?

  26. Kivlor   7 years ago

    Britain has a long history of this. See anti-popery laws for example.

  27. Michael Cook   7 years ago

    George Orwell was British, at home.

  28. ipsum   7 years ago

    Hate Speech Is Free Speech. # SticksAndStones.

  29. Bob Meyer   7 years ago

    "We Brits are sleepwalking into a police state"

    This is offensive to somnambulists. O'Neill, present yourself to the local constabulary. Anti-somnambulists cannot be allowed to spew their vile, filthy hatred.

  30. Duelles   7 years ago

    I've been to Scotland, Britain, Ireland and enjoyed the free spirited pub culture of listening to them insulting people friends and Foes
    Alike.Too bad.

  31. Rockabilly   7 years ago

    I hate hate speech laws.

    Is this a crime?

    So what.

  32. David-2   7 years ago

    "Why not go the whole hog and mic us all up so that you can hear what we're saying at all times of the day?"

    Uh, I hate to tell you this, but Google, Apple, and Amazon have already arranged this, and in fact, are getting people not just to volunteer for it, but to pay for the privilege.

    It's just a short step from that to the government having access to all the audio all the time. Think how long the NSA's activities were unknown? Nobody had even heard of it until Bamford's _The Puzzle Palace_ was published in 1982, and even then nobody believed him - thought he was a crank. What's going on _right now_ with Alexa and Siri and Google's assistant?

  33. loki   7 years ago

    Where is punk rock when you need it! The Anti-Nowhere League would be perfect for the job!

  34. Uncle Jay   7 years ago

    It's better to be a violent criminal in the UK than being political incorrect.
    The Thought Police are everywhere in England and are not afraid to put people in jail for such vicious and fascist crimes as speaking your mind.
    Just ask the thought criminal, Tommy Robinson.

  35. vek   7 years ago

    Our ancestors from across the sea in the UK need to take a page out of the Founding Fathers book and set about fixing their broken ass form of government. The Brits have a long and storied history of revolution... It may yet be time for another one.

    The same can be said of pretty much the rest of Europe. At the ballot box hopefully, and there are positive signs in many parts of Europe... But options don't end at the ballot box should the grievances become too great...

  36. Locke em up   7 years ago

    You think of yourself as a free speech warrior. But are you prepared to listen to madman claiming the holocaust never happened, or, that people never went to the moon?? This is what defending free speech actually means - the ability to listen to idiotic statements. I suppose you could mount a defence on the basis that they are adults with learning difficulties [which is a big part of the population incidentally]. In Germany, for example, denying the holocaust is a statutory crime - where does that leave your precious free speech ????

    If you really believe in free speech you have to be prepared to defend the idiot - are you ?????

  37. loki   7 years ago

    Wrong! It's the right to make idiotic statements. It's also the right to refute idiotic statements. Whether or not anyone listens is up to the individual. Yes, I am prepared to defend the right of the idiot, not the idiot.

    1. Alarack   6 years ago

      I think A lot more people would rather have peace and quiet.

  38. Alarack   6 years ago

    They are just going to resort to being annoying. Stealthy mofos.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Wait, Lilo & Stitch Is About Medicaid and Family Separation?

Peter Suderman | 5.30.2025 1:59 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!