SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
UK Cops Have Decided Impolite Online Speech Is Worth A Visit From An Officer
In this case, it was Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan being visited by the Norwich Police Department on a Sunday morning. He was apparently reported by outspoken trans rights activist Adrian Harrop. Linehan had posted tweets criticizing Harrop's televised debate with a woman who had paid for a billboard depicting the dictionary's definition of the word "woman," which bothered Harrop so much he complained and got that taken down as well.
Harrop was the reason Linehan was talking to police officers about tweets that didn't even violate the Twitter Rules. He had merely suggested Harrop's steamrolling of the billboard buyer during a televised debate might have been "male privilege." Another tweet alleged Harrop had threatened women and doxxed them for not being friendly enough to his cause. This is the tweet Harrop admits bothered him so much he needed to call the police. This is the disturbing, but ultimately useless, outcome of Harrop's decision.
[...] You can't recognize free speech while still insisting everyone has to be nice to everyone else while online. You can hope that's what will happen, but you can't demand this of the general population. Unless you're in the UK, in which case you can, because you don't really recognize free speech and should probably remove that phrase from the government's collective vocabulary.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 29 2018, @12:13AM
Oh sure, nothing happened this visit...a formal police visit, made after a drama queen makes a formal complaint, he received an official Police Warning...which will now appear on his police record, and once back at base the visiting officers will then fill in the requisite paperwork c/w transcripts of whatever Mr Linehan might have said to them as further evidence and pass it up the chain, as this happened in England, this chain will eventually end at some wonk at the CPS who then looks at it and decides if they then think they can proceed with a prosecution under one of the multifarious 'catch-all' laws they've passed to hammer people with.
In this case, if they go for it, I'd bet our old friend 'The Malicious Communications Act 1988' could be called into play...that vague '..cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.', the vagueness being how legally quantifiable the perceived distress or anxiety actually caused..or they could opt for using 1.4A.(1) of 'The Public Order Act 1986'...same sort of vague BS that requires legal testing of the material and it's allegedly offending properties.
If the man from CPS, he say yes! then one fine day Mr Linehan will either be visited again by a couple of not-so-nice plods and taken for a wee ride in one of their cars...or will be requested to attend his nearest nick with his solicitor in tow where he'll be formally charged..
Even if the man from CPS he say no!, this is another mark on Mr Linehan's card...and will be used against him when they need it.
So, Nothing happened eh? and you've the audacity to accuse others of spreading bullshit..