UK Police Now Threatening to Arrest People Who Make Fun of Their Facebook Posts About Drug Busts

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Free speech isn't an absolute right anywhere in the world and never has been. For very good reasons. Seeing any restrictions on it as a slide into tyranny (despite there being less restrictions than ever) is just a slightly paranoid delusion.

That's what anti-abolitionists argued in support of slavery. Excuse me if I find that argument stupid. Truth is, we already have absolute free speech, and its been that way since we were born. It is no longer free when someone comes along and suppresses it.

No its nothing like the arguments used by anti-abolitionists.

You understand perfectly well what is meant by free speech in this context.

Yes it is. Anti-Abolitionists argues slavery was natural, that it’s the way they’ve always done it, and that there was no such thing as no slavery.

a reply to: JBurns

I share your sentiments in the main
...and yes, the comments on the police facebook are funny as #, the cops so lost this battle online.
It's just a cultural difference here compared to the US, nobody is scared of cops here even if they do threaten 'action' when they get called out on social media.
I would put all my money on we won't see a single prosecution from the thousands of piss taking comments people are giving West Yorkshire police right now, the cops there have shamed themselves and firefighting like a badass to save face now.
It is hilarious

EDIT
Here's the facebook link to 'Wakefield Rural' facebook page again for anyone who has just skim read the thread...
Yorkshire hick/hillybilly police facebook page

Been reading this off and on. Getting a fair few lolz.
Funniest piece of irony..I love it.
I appreciate that some US members are concerned that the UK is a police state..our rights and freedoms in the UK are being taken away....etc etc.....
Our friends across the pond are policed by how many levels of law enforcement now ?? Jeez.....
So..... let me have a go at this list...

municipal / city police
County/ sherrifs dept
State police
State Investigation Bureau
Federal Investigation Bureau
DEA / ATF / Marshalls
Etc
Ad nauseam
List goes on.....and on. I know I have missed out a few.

In UK..we have departments for drugs, Serious crime, criminal investigation etc..but...they are all part of the same "crew " if you like. They are all part of one police force.

You can kid yourselves that you have more freedoms or rights than non US members, I am not totally convinced that you do. Just going by the list of enforcers you have keeping all your freedoms in check....it would appear you have less than TPTB would have you believe.
Having lived in the both US and UK....people are less paranoid here, perhaps they feel more freedom from state.

I also remember ( from quite a few years ago...when america was great ) that there were three words that should they ever be spoken during a phone call, there would have been a knock at the door within minutes, with a few men in suits ready to escort you to a small interrogation room. This was a few decades ago and might have been myth, I sure as hell never tested it !
My point being that Big Brother was alive and well back then in the US.
.... With the sophisticated communications we have now...you really think they don't monitor you...and would arrest you for perceived threats to the state? Puhleese !

But...now...?
US is a 21st century, tactically equipped, police state.

Oh the three words...they were WH...POTUS...and the last one...well ain't about to even type it. Still got the fear.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

It is an absolute right in the United States.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

These enumerate our unalienable birth rights, and enshrine them in such a way as to specifically insulate them from government. So free speech is unlimited in the United States, but our government will prosecute you for certain exercises of free speech. Good luck trying to reconcile that prosecution with the First Amendment though

Yeah, every nation on Earth has to have the same restrictions due to national security and to avoid complete collapse of a society. It's an innescapable part of being able to have any functional state or nation. The worlds a lot safer with restrictions on giving out nuclear weapons codes.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Depends on if I get nicked for calling my MP something he doesn't like on twitter and sent to the Tower of London lol

It wasn’t too long ago that you might have. Luckily free speech advocates defended your rights for you and were successful in getting section 5 and the word “insult” removed from the public order act.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Urm, I said Twitter, not face to face. The public order act covers verbal communication and signs, I'm free to insult people in that medium of communication, I just can't be 'grossly offensive' online.
And as I'm a bit of a wordsmith even if I do say so myself, I still manage to insult my member of parliament online, just not in a grossly offensive way.
I have no problem with the current UK law, but I'm not stupid and post things like "I hope all your kids get raped and someone craps in your mouth as you watch" - I am happy that people who post things like that can be nicked by cops.
Grossly offensive is pretty obvious to most people, same as reasonable force laws in the UK which people in the US struggle to understand. Cultural difference is all.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Urm, I said Twitter, not face to face. The public order act covers verbal communication and signs, I'm free to insult people in that medium of communication

You're only free to insult people in that medium of communication because, as I stated, good free speech advocates were defending your freedoms, while you are only too busy enjoying them.

The push to change section five of the act followed a series of headline-grabbing arrests and prosecutions ranging from an Oxford student asking a police officer "Do you realise your horse is gay?" which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and "offensive to people passing by", to a 16 year old holding up a placard that said "Scientology is a dangerous cult".

'Insulting' to be dropped from section 5 of Public Order Act

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

It is an absolute right in the United States.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"

These enumerate our unalienable birth rights, and enshrine them in such a way as to specifically insulate them from government. So free speech is unlimited in the United States, but our government will prosecute you for certain exercises of free speech. Good luck trying to reconcile that prosecution with the First Amendment though

Your Supreme Court says otherwise.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Free speech isn't an absolute right anywhere in the world and never has been. For very good reasons. Seeing any restrictions on it as a slide into tyranny (despite there being less restrictions than ever) is just a slightly paranoid delusion.

That's what anti-abolitionists argued in support of slavery. Excuse me if I find that argument stupid. Truth is, we already have absolute free speech, and its been that way since we were born. It is no longer free when someone comes along and suppresses it.

No its nothing like the arguments used by anti-abolitionists.

You understand perfectly well what is meant by free speech in this context.

Yes it is. Anti-Abolitionists argues slavery was natural, that it’s the way they’ve always done it, and that there was no such thing as no slavery.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with if free speech is an absolute right.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah I know fella, it was a good move in my opinion. This OP though is possibly the worst to try and show free speech police state in the UK though, just read the thousands of comments from people in that police area absolutely ripping the piss out of them.
The cops are firefighting on social media there, well, the're not, they're ignoring it now and hoping it will go away lol.
I get your thoughts on the wider freedom of speech debate but this OP is not a good example to say the cops are in charge, if anything they have been made to look foolish and accept being totally trolled in ways they wouldn't have been had they not whined.
It's comedy gold.

The problem with the world is, People are comfortable being controlled by the few.

The Police yell 'Jump' and the Drones cry 'How High'? So long as people have their spectacles and bread, the Emperor will forever Rule over the many.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Have you even read the replies on the police facebook page? Thousands of Brits, many local to that constabulary, are ripping the absolute piss out of the 'rural' cops who posted the 'warning'.
It is comedy gold. The cops have shamed themselves and are getting attacked by Brits who know they can do nothing, online, in the very way they didn't want.
If you haven't read the comments there then your comments here are less valid.

EDIT
I'm glad people can't post personal attacks like "I hope your grandmother is raped while you watch it as someone craps in your mouth", and if you think that should not be moderated we'll always disagree, but then I'm capable of delivering my message without being what could remotely be called grossly offensive. Any sane person can understand that.
Different cultures though so meh.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Which has absolutely nothing to do with if free speech is an absolute right.

Sure it does. Your claim that absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist is the exact same as those who argued that absolute freedom of slavery didn't exist.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Which has absolutely nothing to do with if free speech is an absolute right.

Sure it does. Your claim that absolute freedom of speech doesn't exist is the exact same as those who argued that absolute freedom of slavery didn't exist.

It really isn't even close.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Rebellion isn't a new thing, in case you hadn't noticed people are fed up being told how to react by people in hats holding sticks. Yes comedy gold, Shame, Division. Oh My. People are using the only voices they've got, the ones they use online to protect the only freedoms left, which are dwindling with every wretched inch they give to their Masters. I don't think my comments are any less valid than yours are, or was that a fine lined attempt to suppress my freedom and shame me into silence as your so accustomed to yourself?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm glad people can't post personal attacks like "I hope your grandmother is raped while you watch it as someone craps in your mouth", and if you think that should not be moderated we'll always disagree, but then I'm capable of delivering my message without being what could remotely be called grossly offensive. Any sane person can understand that. Different cultures though so meh.

If it's the Commentary the Authorities despise, then they've got the option to TURN IT OFF don't they?

Turn it Off

OR

Suppress the Rights of the People

It's not that difficult a decision for them to make is it.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes it is. It's the exact same fallacy and it was used against freedom.

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
I don't think my comments are any less valid than yours are, or was that a fine lined attempt to suppress my freedom of speech to that which you are so accustomed?

No not at all, apologies if you think that, I was just challenging you seemingly making out that Brits can't rip the piss out of our police online, just read the thousands of comments on their fb page.
I will neither confirm or deny if I have contributed because I wouldn't want my fb profile linked by anyone on ATS, but it is comedy gold, the police have been owned in this situation.
I also badly troll my member of parliament, I call him heartless, soulless, morals of a victorian mill owner, warmonger, defender of cuts which kill UK citizens, all manner of insults.
I've even said "I would shed no tears if you and your ilk died tomorrow" all perfectly legal, what more freedom do you want in speech?
Something like "I hope your baby daughter gets gang raped tomorrow until she dies" is that what you want the right to say? I don't. I like the pretty reasonable laws here...and just look at the kicking these rural cops are getting for whining when they were criticised for nicking a guy for personal pot.
It is comedy gold.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I understand your point here. But SCOTUS is designed to interpret the law to ensure our rights aren't infringed. The fact they found congress making legislation abridging the free exercise of speech as Constitutional shows they made a mistake.

Sadly, our system was never intended for the government to maintain checks and balances on itself. Look at what they've done to our Grand Jury system. It used to be entirely independent and autonomous. Now, folks sickeningly muse that it would indict a ham sandwich if the government asked it to.

The lack of civic participation is another reason for this. So are the folks who believe entertainment television is more important than staying abreast of politics and other goings-on in government.

But yes, it is clear SCOTUS made a mistake in their "interpretation" because the Bill of Rights does not require interpretation. It is plain, as are the reasons for those 10 rights being enumerated. The Constitution doesn't grant us any rights, rather, it acts as an extra layer of protection against infringement of our natural, unalienable rights

One of those inalienable rights include:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doing any of those things constitutes alienation and infringement of otherwise unalienable rights. The idea is that since government doesn't grant us these rights, they have no right to infringe upon them either. When it comes to the Bill of Rights, nothing take precedent: national security or otherwise.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I understand. I don't need to be challenged, I challenge.

I have no respect for people that speak vileties of others, particularly they who cannot defend themselves. People like that deserve no sympathy, not from me. The system is broken, and forcing control over one faction from another has never worked.

I don't have a solution because, there's always going to be evil people with cruel intentions lurking somewhere, be it in a place of power or other, I don't think there ever will fully be a solidified solution to any of it. Using common sense and dignity towards others however would be a good place to start.