[Puffer Fish]

"In Russia last year, 400 people were arrested for things they said on social media. How many people do you think were arrested in Britain for things they said on social media, last year? 3,300. One example, there was a young (19 year old) woman from Liverpool, Chelsea Russell, her friend was killed in a car crash, and she posted lyrics of his favorite song... on her instagram. The lyrics. And it was a rap song, so the lyrics contained several instances of the N-word. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, given 500 hours of community service and a fine, tagged (required to wear an electronic monitoring device), and for a year she was under 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. curfew. In Britain, in 2018."
"So we talk about the Chinese system of social credits, and describe it as the emerging of a digital prison. But we're doing it to ourselves voluntarily in the West, so to speak.
So we'll cancel people if they say the wrong thing on social media. But you're telling me now that three and a half thousand people were visited by the police."
"No, far more were visited by the police. There are cases just half a year ago -- and I defended Joe Brand, British comedian over this... she made some comments -- which, you know, it wasn't a great joke, but she talked about this milkshake throwing episode, where people were having milkshakes thrown at them. Well she said that, 'Well, if I was doing it I'd throw some acid over them.' That's not a great joke. But she got a visit from the police, on the basis that she was, quote 'inciting violence'. And they eventually decided not to proceed with prosecution. But it was obviously a joke. She's a comedian, she was on a comedy program. The context is very clear."
"... In that court case, the prosecutor argued that context and intent are irrelevant, and the judge accepted this. ... Now get your mind around that, and think about the potential implications, of that."

"Arrested for a social media post" | Konstantin Kisin - YouTube
The Atlas Society, Konstantin Kisin

related thread:
Man investigated by police for retweeting transgender limerick (Jun 5, 2022 in Libertarianism section)
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=182185

[Pants-of-dog]

"In Russia last year, 400 people were arrested for things they said on social media. How many people do you think were arrested in Britain for things they said on social media, last year? 3,300. One example, there was a young (19 year old) woman from Liverpool, Chelsea Russell, her friend was killed in a car crash, and she posted lyrics of his favorite song... on her instagram. The lyrics. And it was a rap song, so the lyrics contained several instances of the N-word. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, given 500 hours of community service and a fine, tagged (required to wear an electronic monitoring device), and for a year she was under 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. curfew. In Britain, in 2018."

This story seems to be partly true, and partly wrong.

She was almost certainly not arrested. She did lose the trial.

Her sentence was a lot less than you describe: eight weeks of community service and eight weeks of curfew.

"So we talk about the Chinese system of social credits, and describe it as the emerging of a digital prison. But we're doing it to ourselves voluntarily in the West, so to speak.
So we'll cancel people if they say the wrong thing on social media. But you're telling me now that three and a half thousand people were visited by the police."
"No, far more were visited by the police. There are cases just half a year ago -- and I defended Joe Brand, British comedian over this... she made some comments -- which, you know, it wasn't a great joke, but she talked about this milkshake throwing episode, where people were having milkshakes thrown at them. Well she said that, 'Well, if I was doing it I'd throw some acid over them.' That's not a great joke. But she got a visit from the police, on the basis that she was, quote 'inciting violence'. And they eventually decided not to proceed with prosecution. But it was obviously a joke. She's a comedian, she was on a comedy program. The context is very clear."
"... In that court case, the prosecutor argued that context and intent are irrelevant, and the judge accepted this. ... Now get your mind around that, and think about the potential implications, of that."

So this comedian was never charged, let alone arrested.

Where did you get the number of 3,300?

[Robert Urbanek]

Perhaps the State Department should issue a travel advisory warning Americans that what they consider free speech here could get them arrested in the UK.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeesh, *really* -- you guys are the reactionary *rearguard* now -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

"So we talk about the Chinese system of social credits, and describe it as the emerging of a digital prison. But we're doing it to ourselves voluntarily in the West, so to speak.
So we'll cancel people if they say the wrong thing on social media. But you're telling me now that three and a half thousand people were visited by the police."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society


(Don't be anti-social.)

[ingliz]

the number

According to the Metropolitan Police responding to an FOI request, 2,130 Londoners were arrested between 2010 and 2015 for sending by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing message, a criminal offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

So if one extrapolates, it's not impossible.

I couldn't find any numbers for those convicted.

[ingliz]

@Pants-of-dog

After more googling, I found this. Unfortunately, the numbers - the Met's and the Open Rights Group's - are old so not that helpful if you want precision. The London Times ran a similar story in 2016, but it's behind a paywall, and it looks like the 2015 number from the bit I could see with arrests under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 added, so that doesn't get us very far.

[Pants-of-dog]

@ingliz

The numbers you found contradict the tale told by @Puffer Fish. I think it is safe to say that the 3300 number is a fabrication.

[Puffer Fish]

The numbers you found contradict the tale told by Puffer Fish. I think it is safe to say that the 3300 number is a fabrication.

You are being stupid. While it is true that I have not presented any source to back up that claim, other than someone being interviewed in a video saying that, your claim that it is "safe to say" it is a "fabrication" is unreasonable and not based off anything logical.

[pugsville]

You are being stupid. While it is true that I have not presented any source to back up that claim, other than someone being interviewed in a video saying that, your claim that it is "safe to say" it is a "fabrication" is unreasonable and not based off anything logical.

Random people saying stuff.

You need better sourcess. DO a minimal amount of checking before wasting everyone;s time.

Complaining that other people are using unreasonable characterizations, well perhaps should start close to home on that one,.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are being stupid. While it is true that I have not presented any source to back up that claim, other than someone being interviewed in a video saying that, your claim that it is "safe to say" it is a "fabrication" is unreasonable and not based off anything logical.

You are being disrespectful.

Please note that evidence has been presented that the absolute maximum number of people charged with this law in a single year is approximately half of the number you claim it is.

[Rancid]

Social media is so fucking dumb, I'm ok if we just arrest everyone that posts on it.