undefined

points

[-]

The UK arrests 12,000 people a year for their social media post. This tabloid has some examples https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-news/uk-free-speech-stru... . There is less example-focused reporting in more serious international media outlets (British state media avoids this topic).

by mcv6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

NYPost is not the most reliable source, but I can see several other sources reporting similar numbers. I also see criticism, including from the former PM, so it seems the UK police is indeed overly broad in its interpretation and enforcement of the law.

But note that there can also be legitimate reasons why certain social media posts could be illegal: threats, blackmail, cyberbullying, hate speech, etc. Free speech is never absolute; there are always limits to it; also in the US.

The most important (though not the only) reason why free speech is so important, is that it must always be possible to criticise the government, or powerful people in general. That is the big area where the US is attacking free speech: Trump's fragile ego can't handle criticism, so he leverages his power to deny critics, or even just journalists who ask serious questions, access to the White House. Or to remove them from TV (see Stephen Colbert).

I don't know if anything like that is happening in the UK. Some of the reasons mentioned for arrests sound absolutely ludicrous, it definitely sounds like the police is far overstepping its mandate there. But the figure also seems to include threats and harassment, which I would say make absolute sense to prosecute. I haven't seen any evidence of government criticism getting punished in any way, but it's absolutely possible I've missed it; this was a very brief survey. If so, the UK might well be as bad or worse than the US in this.

by senderista5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Do you literally think that elementary school libraries should stock any book ever published, regardless of content? Nobody actually believes that. There will always be a line somewhere, the disagreement is just over where the line should be drawn. That's why all the talk of "book banning" is disingenuous.

by viraptor5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They don't have to stock everything. But it's not about stocking regardless of content - it's about refusing to stock specific content. They're not removing the least interesting N% - it's very targeted.

by senderista3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Of course it's targeted--do you think elementary school libraries should be stocking books with, say, violent sexual content? That is my point: everyone agrees a line must be drawn somewhere, the argument is just where to draw the line. Everyone is in favor of "banning books" from school libraries, they just differ on which books should be banned.