

Eleven people across UK arrested for racist comments on Twitter - dmix
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/british_man_charged_with_making_anti-religious_comments_on_facebook.html

======
DanBC
For some cultural context: two people recently murdered a soldier, and waited
until police came to arrest them. While waiting they spoke to people, some of
whom filmed their statements.

Here's some BBC links (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22644057>)

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664835>)

Some of the arrests were before two competing groups held demonstrations in
the same town. The English Defence League (hateful moronic racist thugs) and
Anti-Facist something or other (a rag-tag bag of anarchists, tin pot trots,
students, and anti-facists) were both holding demonstrations.

Police are perhaps a bit antsy because both groups have had problems with
violence, and this is exacerbated when they demonstrate at the same time.

US citizens may not like our laws, but we -on the whole- do. It is a weird
cultural difference between the UK and US.

~~~
pidg
Agreed, I was quite surprised (as someone from the UK) at the point of view
expressed in this article. It does highlight how different our cultures are in
some respects.

Most people in the UK would support this action - the police are arresting
people who have made hateful, racist or threatening comments. Why is that bad?

~~~
RK
I think the author of the article is probably someone an average person might
consider an "activist" or the like, but I (an American) also feel like the
report is alarming. It sounds like the kind of thing you'd expect from Saudi
Arabia, rather than a democratic society.

I suppose in the US we are more in the all-or-nothing camp when it comes to
free speech (at least idealistically).

Edit: _Most people in the UK would support this action - the police are
arresting people who have made hateful, racist or threatening comments. Why is
that bad?_

The concern is that what is perfectly fine one day (and really truly
legitimate) can be "bad" the next. Better not to have a category of "bad"
speech at all. Otherwise you may be at whim of political fashion.

~~~
pidg
Free speech in the UK (and the rest of the EU) is governed by Article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights, which you can read here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)

Basically, part 1 says "you have free expression", while part 2 says "unless
that expression could seriously damage people's lives". Works for us.

~~~
RK
I think part 2 of the Article is what people worry could easily be abused,
especially when you include wording like "for the protection of health or
_morals_ ". "Morals" in particular being something that is subject to very
wide interpretation.

Viewing from the lens of an another American political issue: separation of
church and state, an aspect of freedom of religion. There are people in the US
who strongly believe that we should have state sanctioned prayer in schools
_and_ feel this doesn't conflict with religious freedom. What they fail to
take into account is that at some point their children could be in the school
holding prayers for Not_Their_Religion. The point being that separation of
church and state is the only policy that protects everyone's religious
freedom. Analogously, you can argue that allowing all speech is the only way
to protect everyone's freedom of speech.

I really am not an expert on this. This is more of a dorm-room, after-hours
student discussion level of understanding on my part and likely more a
cultural reflection than a strong reflection of legal foundations, etc.

------
robmil
It's happened quite a lot in the last few years, e.g. following the collapse
of a black football player, Fabrice Muamba.[1]

You have to consider the different context at play here; the UK has never had
a history of "fundamentalist" (for want of a better word) free speech like
there is in the US. There are plenty of laws on the books, from sending
malicious communications to inciting racial hatred, that prevent speech that
would be entirely legal in the US.

I think that's something that's reflected (either a cause or an effect, I'm
not sure which) in public opinion, too; there's certainly no widespread outcry
here at these types of arrest. The only recent case I can think of where the
ruling was against free speech and where public opinion was significantly
against the ruling was the Robin Hood Airport tweet, where someone tweeted an
obviously incredible threat to blow up an airport.[2]

[1]: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-
fabr...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-
muamba-tweets)

[2]: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344>

~~~
lmm
Interestingly the biggest recent tweet/speech-related outcry I remember in the
UK was a case of _US_ authorities not seeing the funny side:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-
Buntin...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Bunting-
Leigh-Van-Bryan-UK-tourists-arrested-destroy-America-Twitter-jokes.html)

~~~
lutze
Yeah, this article's blinkered, hyperbolic and frankly smug tone is pretty
amusing when you take things like the above into context.

He even sticks a "literally Hitler!" on the end for good measure.

~~~
dmix
I apologize for posting blogspam but I refuse to post the DailyMail on HN.

Either way the mods took this article off the frontpage.

As a side note, the border security do not operate under the same laws as the
US courts/police. It's a grey area where they can arbitrarily deny you for
looking at them the wrong way. Free speech doesn't apply at border crossings.
In addition noone was arrested domestically. Not the best analogy.

------
Blahah
There is absolutely no context given in the article. In particular, we don't
know what these tweets actually said. In general, free speech is quite well
protected here (UK), but it is an offence to incite violence. The tweets and
Facebook posts could conceivably have been threats of violence against
individuals (groups, etc.), in which case it's no different to making that
kind of threat in public in any other forum, i.e., illegal.

~~~
dmix
It said in the article what they are getting charged with:

> The Malicious Communications Act 1988 is a British Act of Parliament that
> makes it illegal in England and Wales to "send or deliver letters or other
> articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety". It also applies to
> electronic communications.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988)

------
josscrowcroft
I stopped reading at the opening sentence: _"Because it just wouldn't do to
upset the sensibilities of those who might wish to cut your head off."_

This is implying guilt (or intention) on the part of the recipients of these
racist messages, and seems to imply that it's OK to 'upset' (re: profile and
aggravate) people if you think they're likely to cut your head off based only
on their race or religion. Which is pretty low.

------
samwillis
That article has very little context.

I don't know if this received much coverage in the US but these arrests are
for comments made in the aftermath of a murder of a British army cadet in
broad daylight [1] the other day that has been called a terrorist attack.
There has been a significant rise in racial aggression since the incident and
that needs to be brought under control [2].

1\. <http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303> 2\.
<http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664835>

------
viraptor
I'm not sure how known this is, but in 2011 UK had a couple of days long riots
in a number of cities. It was not justified in any way in my opinion - just a
lot of people who took their general problems to the street and started
destroying shops, cars, houses, attacking police. (that's the tldr, check wiki
link for the details) With that kind of response to the social network
comments, I think police is trying to prevent another such event aimed at a
specific group.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots>

Social networks were used quite a lot during that time to pass messages about
the police locations and various events.

------
joonix
Disgusting. Thankfully I live in the United States.

~~~
DanBC
Because US law enforcement would never stiffle anyone's freedom of speech,
even if that was a ridiculous jokey comment?

([http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/30/u-k-
touri...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/30/u-k-tourists-
deported-due-to-tweet-about-destroying-america/))

------
pvnick
>Do they even arrest Muslims for anti-religious speech?

Good question. I'd actually like to know the answer to this.

~~~
wtil
Absolutely, we've banned several Islamic fundamentalist organsations
including, Al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. Both were proscribed under the UK's
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

------
Nux
Re arrests, I get why they're doing it - it's a bit tense to be a muslim in UK
these days.

~~~
pvnick
I wonder if chopping the heads off British soldiers in broad London daylight
has anything to do with it?

~~~
kefka
HOW DARE YOU mock Islam like that! We are a religion of peace and love!!

Off with your head!

~~~
Nux
Kefka, stop with the hate comments already. It's not helping anyone.

~~~
kefka
My "hate" comments are directly related to those "hate" actions, like killing
and maiming. Lest alone, shrouding words as "hate" words are poisoning,
because it tries to defang legitimate criticism to "Oh lol, he's just a
racist".

And I do wish for a peaceful earth, full of multitudes of genetically
different peoples, following different faiths and paths. And I'd like to be
able to go up and ask them about that. However, we're not there, and tribal
groups take hold instead. The best I can do is to highlight when a certain
tribe acts up, whether that be the Catholic church, England, USA, UN, Islamic
countries.. It matters not who does evil, but that it is called out (and
stopped if possible).

------
angersock
As much as I would support an RFC to finally let us deliver facepunch-over-IP,
this sort of punishment for online comments is horrifying.

If the US had similar laws--well, I don't think it'd bode well for any of us.

~~~
kefka
And here I am, in agreement with cricizing (read religious hateful comments)
against Islam.

After having looked at governments that are Islamic states, and the way they
treat fellow people (religious and nonreligious), they deserve to be
critically looked at. In Saudi Arabia, women who are raped are then killed for
"being a whore". Little girls are trapped in a burning building because they
didnt have their headscarves.

And then there's the whole Sharia Law. Many Imams want Sharia installed in
every western state possible. They do similar tricks as the Domionionists do
here (right wing Christian extremists).

If they could conduct the affairs of their own people and those innocents
around them better (try humanely), then I'd not be writing this. Since they
won't, I shall be vocal.

