It is a legitimate concern for anyone who cares about freedom. People are being arrested over tweets, one of which you just quoted and published on a public forum.

As you know, it does not meet the threshold for incitement in American law, as there is zero evidence it incited anyone to anything, and because the violence was never immanent. The charge of “inciting racial hatred” is even more ridiculous because racial hatred does not come about by reading someone’s angry words.

But when people pooh-pooh such concerns it makes me curious. Was there any time in your entire life that you read something and it incited you to violence or hatred or anything that can be construed as a crime? When you read the above tweet, did you feel yourself reaching for the pitchfork?

Was there any time in your entire life that you read something and it incited you to violence or hatred or anything that can be construed as a crime? When you read the above tweet, did you feel yourself reaching for the pitchfork? — NOS4A2

Not in that particular case, but at other times, yes. Words are not movement, but they can unlock the door to it, or influence its direction.

I'm not a UK resident and have no emotional connection to writing this post, but I do have a question for the author.

Do you think it's necessary to distinguish between freedom of private speech and freedom of public speech?

I'll give you my thoughts. Freedom of speech is a social construct. It didn't just fall from grace, but is a perfectly reasonable human choice. The idea itself was invented long before radio or Twitter. Freedom of speech in that era meant the ability to speak loudly. But even when the idea was invented, and not during its existence, was this freedom ever fully realized. Restrictions of one kind or another have always existed. Our modern world is even more sensitive to freedom of speech, because any thought, even a bad one, can instantly acquire high intersubjective weight, which can easily lead to dire consequences. While in the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries, freedom of speech was subject to mild religious or social restrictions (which prevented people from speaking nonsense), today this restriction is gone, meaning greater government intervention is only a matter of time.

Furthermore, if we take a sober (and not idealistic) look at today's world, we can conclude that freedom of speech will be further restricted.

Was my comment removed? What did I say?
Is it because I said “fucked”?

Words are not movement, but they can unlock the door to it, or influence its direction.

That’s probably too metaphorical for my own tastes because to argue from a metaphor is to substitute imagination for judgment. That might not be the best approach wherever law is concerned, but then again that kind of rhetoric is built into the law itself, which, to me, shows how flimsy it all really is.

It is not a new thing. People have been arrested for doign next to nothing many times in the UK.

It is not the ones going to prison that is really an issue, it those who get arrested when they should never have been arrested in the first place. Rowan Atkinson made a speech about this around two decades ago I believe (?) about this.

Someone being arrested for nothing and then released is poor policing. The example given was someone getting arrested for calling a horse 'gay'.

The biggest difference today is simply social media. Everywhere I look people are glued to their phones watching every little thing going on. If people wish to make X look like Y they can pretty easily.

When it comes to 'inciting violence' I think it is hard to draw a line as to what constitutes incitement and what does not.

@flannel jesus

Do you think it's necessary to distinguish between freedom of private speech and freedom of public speech? — Astorre

This is an important (and impossible) distinction.

Certain things are not allowed to be discussed on this forum even though they are pertinent to philosophy. This is a private domain though.

What counts as 'public' and 'private' is not always clear. This is especially the case when it comes to the simple fact that most of what people say can easily be spread on the information highway with a simple click.

The British example is indeed interesting.

Naturally this question is about the various hate speech laws or in the UK case, similar laws and the implementation of these laws, which are various in the UK (starting from legislation like the Football Offences Act of 1991, which prohibits indecent or racialist chanting at designated football matches). The ordinary type of libel suits that happen between individuals isn't here the focus. People participating in public and political discourse is the real issue here.

It is not a new thing. People have been arrested for doign next to nothing many times in the UK. — I like sushi

This seems a bit odd to (us) foreigners, who don't know so well the UK legal system and the actual practices.

One simple reason can be that the UK police simple focuses far more on social media/public speech than other countries and is far more active in going after for example "hate speech" than in other countries. Then the UK has for example Extremism Analysis Unit in the Home Office, that surveys Social Media. Anti-terrorism or simply going after football hooligans can create an environment where the police and intelligence authorities keep large databases and simply follow activities in a far more broader scope than in other countries. As the UK has had it's share of terrorism, this is totally understandable.

Here I think it's very important that authorities aren't biased in the surveillance of different extremists. For example the US authorities like the FBI were quite impartial (prior to Trump and Kash Patel etc) and went on to survey everybody, be it right-wing extremists or left-wing radicals, everybody from animal rights activists to pro-life groups attacking abortion clinics or white power groups.

This actually works, because In my view real damage happens when it is the perceived or actual is biased with differential treatment. What is essential is usually in these cases is transparency on the actions that the security establishment does.

But I'd gladly hear opinions or comments from Britons themselves here.

This seems a bit odd to foreigners, who don't know so well the UK legal system and the actual practices. — ssu

Why? People are falsely arrested in other countries too.

Why? People are falsely arrested in other countries too. — I like sushi

Arrests are one thing, convictions are another. I think the question is if in the UK these arrests/convictions are multiple times more than in other OECD countries.

Individual cases don't tell so much. There can be these "accusations of a horse being gay"-incidents or something. These are the incidents Elon Musk fills his X to bash the Starmer administration. Individual cases yet tell only so much as you can obviously find them everywhere. For example one ex-minister of justice in Finland was accused of hate speech when she referred quotes from the Bible. Yet the case was immediately dismissed by judge, which brought credibility to the system.

Yet the case was immediately dismissed by judge, which brought credibility to the system. — ssu

This is precisely the point Rowan Atkinson was making. It is not credibility to the system if someone is falsely arrested. Someone should not be arrested for such acts in the first place.

It is what it is though. Could be far worse.

From 2012: Rowan Atkinson on Free Speech

This actually works, because In my view real damage happens when it is the perceived or actual is biased with differential treatment. — ssu

In the UK, Two-Tier Justice Is Now Undeniable
/.../
Last Friday, a jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court in London cleared Jones, a now suspended Labour councillor, of encouraging violent disorder at a protest last August. Jones attended a counter-demonstration in Walthamstow, London, in response to a planned right-wing protest—one of many last summer, sparked by the Southport murders. Surrounded by his fellow protestors, Jones made an impassioned speech, captured on video, denouncing the far Right: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.” At this point, Jones drew his finger across his own throat.

The clip subsequently went viral, and Jones was soon arrested and charged. He pleaded not guilty and, a year later, faced a jury of his peers who decided he had not committed any crime.

Jones, rightly, walked free. Words are not violence and should not be treated as such. Contrast this with the example of Lucy Connolly. Despite being arrested and charged at almost the same time, for very similar actions, the outcome for her was completely different.

/.../

Perhaps the most galling part about all of this is that the state continues to pretend there is no such thing as two-tier justice. When asked about the issue last summer by a journalist, the chief of the Metropolitan Police grabbed the reporter’s microphone and threw it to the ground in a tantrum. To this day, legal higher-ups will deny there is anything untoward at play. Just recently, the UK attorney general, Lord Hermer, said that calling the legal system hypocritical was “frankly disgusting.”

If you dare speak out against the blatant two-tier justice, the government will brand you as a far-right extremist. The Telegraph revealed last month that a unit in Whitehall was keeping tabs on people who complained online about the UK’s unfair justice system, in case this “exacerbated tensions.” A leaked government report from early this year also warns that those who are concerned about two-tier policing feed into an “extreme right-wing narrative.”

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/in-the-uk-two-tier-justice-is-now-undeniable/

This is a topic that cannot actually be discussed.

This is precisely the point Rowan Atkinson was making. It is not credibility to the system if someone is falsely arrested. Someone should not be arrested for such acts in the first place. — I like sushi

People shouldn't get falsely arrested. Yet actually convictions are where the actual issue lies. Anyone can make claims that this or that person's public views are basically hate speech etc. First level is if someone takes this to court or a prosecutor makes a case of it. The real issue is there is if someone gets a conviction. Just like Trump is now behaving by going after people he doesn't like, many of these cases have been thrown out of court.

The Telegraph revealed last month that a unit in Whitehall was keeping tabs on people who complained online about the UK’s unfair justice system, in case this “exacerbated tensions.” A leaked government report from early this year also warns that those who are concerned about two-tier policing feed into an “extreme right-wing narrative.”

I think this started in the UK with the grooming gang scandal. If it happened earlier, please let me know.

The solution to this is simply transparency: never, ever hide the statistics or the ethnicity of convicted felons. Do not give an impression that you are hiding something, nothing erodes public trust more and gives credibility to issues like. Also treating ethnic groups differently, if they react differently to arrests etc. is a very bad strategy.

Just to give an example of how political leadership can dismantle political landmines: When Finland closed totally it's border with Russia and stopped to follow the earlier guidelines on treating asylum seekers as before, several legal experts raised questions of this going against the current laws. The Prime Minister simply acknowledged this indeed "this was very problematic", yet that national security overrode this. The Russian intelligence services were actively pushing undocumented immigrants to the border (something that was extremely easy to verify from interviewing the immigrants) and making a "hybrid attack" in this way, which everybody understood. There was no criticism from EU, which understood the situation.

This is perhaps something that many politicians don't understand: you have to talk about the actual problems and difficulties and especially not give some fringe group to be the only one noting the issue, be they on the right or the left. If you simply refuse to admit there is no issue, this only gives credibility to the fringe group, which likely has utterly destructive and self-defeating extremist answers to handle complex policy issues (like we see now in Germany, where the ADF is pushing to divide German citizens to a two-tier standard).

One of the most prominent examples, someone made a racist tweet about immigrants and included the line "Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care."

I couldn't find an example of someone going to prison for a tweet that didn't include some kind of actually violent rhetoric. — flannel jesus

We are seeing political censorship trying to pass itself off as something legitimate. If someone argues against immigration they are called a "racist" and that's the end of the story. They must be silenced.

Regarding violence, if Linehan had spoken of punching a pedophile, or a rapist, or an anti-immigrationist, he would not have been arrested. It's obviously not about inciting violence, given that the form of speech that is censored has to do with political points of view, and if someone had the "right" political perspective then the same level of "violence" would not be prohibited.

The other point about violence is that the lower classes will of course resort to violence if you destroy their lives with bad policies and then gaslight them whenever they attempt to voice their concerns within the system. You can only gaslight the majority for so long, especially in democracies. If you don't allow them to have a say within the political arrangement, then they will disregard that arrangement. They are very naive who think they can carry on with the censorship and the gaslighting and the problem will just go away.

Just to give an example of how political leadership can dismantle political landmines: When Finland closed totally it's border with Russia and stopped to follow the earlier guidelines on treating asylum seekers as before, several legal experts raised questions of this going against the current laws. The Prime Minister simply acknowledged this indeed "this was very problematic", yet that national security overrode this. The Russian intelligence services were actively pushing undocumented immigrants to the border (something that was extremely easy to verify from interviewing the immigrants) and making a "hybrid attack" in this way, which everybody understood. There was no criticism from EU, which understood the situation. — ssu

The problem is that liberalism does not acknowledge the value of the preservation of the realm, and therefore what Finland did is not justifiable on liberal principles:

Standalone liberalism results in a very strange view of public life. Consider the first
duty of the sovereign: to preserve the realm. I can think of no liberal principle,
classical or modern, that justifies such a duty. Today’s debates about immigration and
borders turn on this venerable imperative. I don’t see how the great liberal theorist
John Rawls could have found a reason to distinguish between citizens and non-
citizens, at least not in his great work, A Theory of Justice. The same holds for his
libertarian adversary, Robert Nozick.

There are other political imperatives that fall outside the scope of liberalism. From
time immemorial, regimes have sought to promote marriage and religion. These are
not liberal ambitions. More generally, the imperative of solidarity, however
understood, falls outside the scope of liberalism. In many instances, efforts to
promote solidarity run counter to liberal ideals. Although a Fourth of July parade is in
many respects a celebration of liberalism, there’s nothing in liberalism that endorses
grand expressions of collective loyalty. Indeed, I can well imagine John Stuart Mill
warning us about the subtle coercive effect, the insidious tyranny of a social
consensus. — R. R. Reno, The Return of Strong Religion

The whole notion that opposition to immigration, or transgenderism, or Islam, is per se wrong, is a classically liberal position. In our day and age the problems with liberalism are becoming increasingly obvious, and the ruling class in Europe is slow to admit this.

This thread reeks of Americans being surprised that their values are not universal.

The US also has laws against incitement; the difference is only with regards to hate speech.

I say this because some posters are saying that in the US you couldn't be arrested for a "mean tweet" but in fact if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either.

In any case, the big picture recently has been Americans have been sold this idea that free speech is "under attack" in the UK and Europe, pushed by the likes of JD Vance, but the reality is the US is much worse right now. Whether it's free expression, freedom to assemble or the free press: all are being suppressed.

if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

You could get arrested or investigated. It's in the context of that moment.

Yep.

When you read the above tweet, did you feel yourself reaching for the pitchfork?

I think you’re addressing the wrong crowd, I’m sure we’re nothing but a bunch of harmless philosophers.

Your referenced material is deeply politically biased to the right. In the U.K. two tier policing is a deeply divisive culture war issue whipped up by the far right. There’s no basis for it, media organs like the Daily Mail and The Telegragh take every opportunity to take one off cases where the situation can be dramatised as ambiguous, blow it up into a national media storm. Not to mention their extreme political biases to the right on a whole host of issues. I recall they said Brexit was the best thing for the country, Boris Johnson was a stand up guy and Liss Truss’s budget was the best in U.K. history. No they are saying Starmer is destroying the country after the Tory’s salted the earth before they left office.

People shouldn't get falsely arrested. Yet actually convictions are where the actual issue lies. Anyone can make claims that this or that person's public views are basically hate speech etc. First level is if someone takes this to court or a prosecutor makes a case of it. — ssu

I completely disagree. If someone is arrested on false grounds they have had their freedom removed. If you had to spend the night in a cell, and suffer the indignation of being hauled away, then I think this is a major issue.

Not taking this seriously can lead to people being arrested on trumped up charges simply because there is a political motive to do so. That the conviction goes through is way worse, but the root of the problem lies in false arrest rather than false prosecution.

I think this started in the UK with the grooming gang scandal. If it happened earlier, please let me know.

The solution to this is simply transparency: never, ever hide the statistics or the ethnicity of convicted felons. Do not give an impression that you are hiding something, nothing erodes public trust more and gives credibility to issues like. Also treating ethnic groups differently, if they react differently to arrests etc. is a very bad strategy. — ssu

This happened due to social media. When I was growing up and you heard of this or that crime being committed the identity of the perpetrators were kept mostly out of the public eye. The world has changed, that is all.

In this light I can argue just as well that nothing erodes public trust more than being exposed to information seasoned and cooked up by platforms with a money driven agenda to rake in $$$$ rather than provide a vague and distanced picture of current affairs.

Note: I have no solution. Just pointing out that there are just too many factors to consider here and most people have no time to filter through even half of the data out there. Even less have the ability to moderate their own opinions or form a reasonable representation of what is going on.

Being blind can tell you more than having full sight in some circumstances. I think everyone is politically hoodwinked. Such is life as a human :)

It goes both ways. Paying for basic healthcare and education is inherently wrong to me. Some things we take for granted are deemed irredeemably unethical when we move away from our cultural centres.

I so judge other countries based on my own personal experiences :D

The whole notion that opposition to immigration, or transgenderism, or Islam, is per se wrong, is a classically liberal position. In our day and age the problems with liberalism are becoming increasingly obvious, and the ruling class in Europe is slow to admit this. — Leontiskos

I think here you are mixing liberal idealism and practical statecraft and thus argue that liberalism hinders the latter. Even now in laws we universally do have things like martial law in a case of hostile attack, which hinder dramatically the liberal freedoms we have in peacetime. Thus liberal democracies are totally capable and do have legislation that basically is illiberal.

We have representational democracy (and yes, career politicians running it) to solve these political problems, be they ideological or moral.

The US also has laws against incitement; the difference is only with regards to hate speech.

I say this because some posters are saying that in the US you couldn't be arrested for a "mean tweet" but in fact if you're in communication with people trying to burn down a hotel, and you're saying burn down the hotel, I'm not so sure this would be protected speech there either. — Mijin

This is quite hypocritical, because burning down hotels is basically terrorism, and the US has very harsh legislation against terrorism and even performs extrajudicial actions when it comes to terrorism. The US can kill and has killed it's own citizens, even under aged ones, without any trial or legislative process, but by a decision by the US President. And this was totally accepted even before Trump defined drug smugglers to be "narcoterrorists" and disregarded even the laws of war while killing them.

In fact during the War on Terror, legal experts in my country noticed that giving financial aid to terrorist organizations gave far longer sentences than murdering several people (committing an act of terrorism itself). This because the US insisted that countries would have similar legislation it had on this subject and Finland complied with this.

Yet of course, for totally similar actions, people won't be giving a sentence for of hate speech in the US.

Hence it's whimsical to argue that the US would uphold a justice state more than the European countries. It would be similar to arguing that except for Scotland, because Scotland does have the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 while England and Wales have no laws against hate crimes directly, the UK doesn't convict people because of hate speech.

I completely disagree. If someone is arrested on false grounds they have had their freedom removed. If you had to spend the night in a cell, and suffer the indignation of being hauled away, then I think this is a major issue. — I like sushi

I agree with this, so I think you aren't getting my point here. Or do you consider that a sentence on false grounds is less of a breach of one's freedoms? I don't think so.

Not taking this seriously can lead to people being arrested on trumped up charges simply because there is a political motive to do so. That the conviction goes through is way worse, but the root of the problem lies in false arrest rather than false prosecution. — I like sushi

Again, I'm not saying here that we shouldn't take arrests on false charges seriously.

This happened due to social media. When I was growing up and you heard of this or that crime being committed the identity of the perpetrators were kept mostly out of the public eye. The world has changed, that is all. — I like sushi

I agree with this.

I assume that now simply the incitement toward hate crimes (or something equivalent to it) is extremely easy to make and thanks to the vitriolic discourse in the social media, people participate in the social media can be judged then on incitement. One real cause is the lack of refereeing: if someone has for example here on PF such opinions that can be seen as incitement, they will be quickly banned. Earlier when public discourse was in the opinion pages of newspapers, there were the referees of the paper itself on just what was published.

Hence it's whimsical to argue that the US would uphold a justice state more than the European countries. It would be similar to arguing that except for Scotland, because Scotland does have the Hate Crime and Public Order Act 2021 while England and Wales have no laws against hate crimes directly, the UK doesn't convict people because of hate speech. — ssu

Yes.
An actual example of this kind of reasoning is the Palestine protests. A lot of Americans I talk to insist that you can't be arrested for protesting in the US. The 3,200 people arrested protesting Gaza were arrested for things like trespassing and public order offences (and the majority were subsequently released without charge), and because the arrest didn't specifically mention their speech, so they claim it is not an infringement of free speech.
But of course, by this logic, one could probably argue that there's freedom of speech in north korea.

disclaimer: I think the UK proscribing the group "Palestine Action" has been a shitshow. Not that the US or other countries would have necessarily done differently: PA has committed some acts of terror. But obviously things have got out of hand when elderly people are being dragged to jail just because of words on a banner. I'm definitely not defending that.

Let's start simple: you think death threats should be illegal, right?

But when people pooh-pooh such concerns it makes me curious. Was there any time in your entire life that you read something and it incited you to violence or hatred or anything that can be construed as a crime? When you read the above tweet, did you feel yourself reaching for the pitchfork? — NOS4A2

There have always been taboos. The reason for a taboo is to leave no doubt that something is wrong and should never be done. When it comes to prejudice and violence, there must be no question that the violence is taboo. This would mean being firm about a boundary and not leaving any wiggle room. When something is taboo, not only is it not done, but we don't even think about it.

Your question to us of if we have experienced a violent urge because of what someone said or did is meaningless because such people are not likely to be in this forum. Such a person is more apt to use a public platform where they are apt to find agreement and maybe even encouragement. It is rather shocking how many of the killers talk about their intention before following through with it. These emotionally unstable people are the ones we want to stop, and that's why humans have always had taboos. To stop the 1 out of a million people who is about to go off the rails.

The problem today is that we no longer understand taboos, what they are, and why they are important. This unfortunate reality has made the problem a governmental one, instead of just a social one. This is a cultural problem made worse by today's technology. We now understand that such violence has a copycat effect, inspiring others to do the same thing.

That example doesn't come close to incitement. "For all i care" makes this explicitly clear and the courts could be considered ultra vires for hte way this was argued and decided. That's why there's uproar. Luke Yarwood is an example where the law did what it was meant to do. His tweets were disgusting and clear incitement. That's why no one even knows about it, for hte most part.

More examples of extremely questionable results (from my current understanding) are found in cases for Jordan Parlour, Joseph Haythorne,

The UK is definitely sliding towards totalitarian censorship. The cases I've found are obviously stupid. Victims getting longer terms than their abusers, for saying something mean for instance.

Ridiculous imo. Mean tweets (something which might offend, is how it is worded) shouldn't ever be fodder for the Law. You do not need new rules to criminalize more speech. Many countries have done this.

Largely, it is the pattern of intimidation that people have an issue with - it's hard to put people in prison over words, like the above cases. But cases like Elizabeth Kinney illustrate extremely well how hte UK is attempting, using law enforcement, to dampen and reduce speech. It would be silly to think otherwise anymore. Arrests for Tweets by county is something like"

1. UK 12,500+
2. Belarus - 6,000+
3. Germany - 3500+
4. China 1200 +

Very weird state of affairs. Though, fwiw, I think people should be able to say anything. At all. Our laws already deal with causing harm pretty well. Hurt feelings aren't a matter for the law.