In its hit song London Calling the Clash warns:
“London calling to the faraway towns
Now that war is declared and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, all you boys and girls”
According to a new report, the British punk rock band may have been prophetic in 1979 in a way never foreseen in its apocalyptic lyrics. This week, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that the police will not necessarily confine its arrests for speech crimes to London or even the United Kingdom. Rowley suggests that Americans and other citizens could be extradited and brought to London for online postings.
London has been hit with days of violent protests over immigration policies, including attacks and arson directed at immigration centers. This violence has been fueled by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents.
News outlets and pundits have condemned the false reports and the violent protests. However, the police are moving to arrest those who are repeating false claims or engaging in inflammatory speech. Rowley is warning that they will not stop at the city limit or even the country’s borders.
He warned “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”
Rowley was asked by a reporter about the criticism by Elon Musk and others over the response of the government. Musk noted a video of someone allegedly arrested for offensive online comments with a question, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?”
Pundits and politicians in the United Kingdom have called for an investigation or the arrest of Musk for merely speaking publicly on the controversy.
The reporter said that high profile figures have been “whipping up the hatred,” and that “the likes of Elon Musk” are involved in the online speech. She then asked what the London police are prepared to do “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”
Rowley told the reporter:
“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material. All of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are taking — who are causing the problems for communities.”
The message is chilling because free speech has been in a free fall in the United Kingdom as well as other Western countries. I discuss this trend in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.
The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
We also discussed the arrest of a woman who was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this crack down on free speech.
The London police are now deputized to stop or arrest those engaged in speech deemed inciteful or inflammatory. Last year, the police stopped a man from walking in the street because there were pro-Palestinian protesters and his presence would be inciteful because he was “quite openly Jewish.”
The United Kingdom has a myriad of laws criminalizing speech with vague terms allowing for arbitrary enforcement. For example, Public Order Act 1986 prohibits any expressions of racial hatred, defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group’s color, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
Section 18 of the Act specifically includes any speech that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” An arrest does not have to be based on a showing of intent to “stir up racial hatred,” but can merely be based on a charge that “having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
The country has also targeted social media companies to force them to censor users for speech deemed threatening, abusive or insulting by the government.
These ambiguous laws are written on the same “trust us, we’re the government” rationale. The police insist that they will use their discretion wisely in what speech will result in arrest.
Ordinarily, one would expect the U.S. government to push back on the suggestion that these laws could be used to arrest and extradite its citizens for the use of free speech. However, the Biden-Harris Administration has been a proponent of censorship and blacklisting for years. At the same time, leading Democrats have called for European-type laws to be adopted or enforced against U.S. citizens for their views on social media.
We previously discussed how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign countries to use or pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter.
The effort of these politicians would allow free speech to be reduced to the lowest common denominator as countries export their anti-free speech laws. When Clinton called upon Europeans to censor Americans, this is precisely what such actions would look like. These foreign countries could force Americans to curtail their speech under the threat of ruinous financial penalties or even arrest.
As some of us predicted, these laws have expanded as the desire to silence others becomes an insatiable appetite. Advocacy groups have pushed the police to crackdown on their critics. Now, the threat to “throw the full force of the law at people” may be extended to the people of other nations.
We could all soon be dancing to that same tune:
“London calling, see we ain’t got no swing
Except for the ring of that truncheon thing”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
Good. It’s time we had another war with England. About time we kicked their a*ses again.
Writing this so the police in the UK won’t arrest me—->
Police officer Rowley is a good man doing a good. The immigrants worldwide are all terrific people. Lgbtq are the best people and Jolly’s skit was fab. Burkahs and veils are stylish. Socialism is best and the communists got it right. Don’t need guns or free speech.
☺
Attention:
And, we must regard our future leaders as the Easter Bunny & Santa Claus ! They care for us with outstanding concern, Right ! ?
No need to criticize, or provide responses, to such peerless leaders. Just Like Having a Big Brother !
Any issue with the above, please contact international Global Response Team, @ 003-555-968204, to arrange interview. Pls have your ID documents available for copy&photo.
Arrange this by Penalty of Law by 2\31\20287
I take this as a personal challenge.
I continue on the socialist mindset. California has declared that they will continue to tax businesses that have moved to Texas. The only way to do so is to exercise an extradition order for the leaders of the businesses that have decided to leave and force them to stand before the Gavin Newson court for crimes committed. The rot of the socialist mind should be exposed for what it is. Tim Walz says that socialist are just being neighborly.
TiT,
The failed state of CA is an example of what Harris/Waltz wants to transform American into. A true dystopian nightmare.
See below as Dennis the Draft Dodger repeats his reckless, dangerous, irresponsible horse shit.
It’s reckless. It’s dangerous. It’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict. The justice system should be respected and we should never allow anyone to tear it down
Dennis Mcinlyre needs to shut his fat mouth before someone does it for him——Joe Biden
*SENATOR KEELEY
California is a true dystopian nightmare? Only by United States standards.
There are no other standards.
There are no better standards.
The United States’ standards are the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which provide individuals with maximal freedom while severely limiting and restricting government.
This author is an anti-American, anti-Constitution, direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
California is a true dystopian nightmare.
California is a sump of unassimilable, illegal alien, foreign invaders who were rejected by Americas and require a massive socially engineered, and redistributionist, welfare state that the U.S. Constitution prohibits.
California is a one-party communist state by the standards of freedom, free enterprise, and free markets under a rigorously limited and restricted government.
A+ on social points!
Jonathan: Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of DJT’s appointees to the SC, was in the news this week. He decided to sit for an interview on Fox News during which he warned “Be careful” over Pres. Biden’s proposals to impose term limits on Justices and an enforceable code of professional ethics.
Gorsuch seems to think Congress has no power to do any of that. Gorsuch forgets that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that judges and Justices of the SC “shall hold their offices during good behavior”. Is it “good behavior” for Justices to receive millions in gifts from billionaires with business before the Court? Every other judge, state or federal employee is prohibited from receiving anything of value. Does Gorsuch actually think SC Justices should be exempted from these same ethics rules? It seems he does.
Gorsuch’s Fox interview is part of his tour to promote his new book “Over Ruled: the Human Toll of Too Much Law”. Strange that a SC Justice would complain there are too many laws. Isn’t that the job of the SC–to rule on the law? It’s like a doctor writing a book titled “Too Much Medicine, too much Science” to keep in your head.
In the same Fox interview Gorsuch tried to explain his concurrence in Trump v US–the “immunity” decision. He said: “No man is above the law in his private conduct. Even a president can be prosecuted for speeding. OK?” That was deflection. One legal observer asked what would happen if the president is speeding to the Pentagon on urgent business? Arguably, under the “immunity” decision that would constitute an “official act” and the president could not be prosecuted–even if someone on the street were struck and killed.
Gorsuch has a distorted view of the Constitution. He thinks the SC and the President are “above the law”–that these institutions are supreme over all other branches of government. That’s not what the Constitution provides or what the Framers intended.
Your argument illogically moves directly from Biden’s proposals of (a) term limits and (b) an enforceable code of professional ethics, to Gorsuch beliving “Congress has no power to do any of that.”
There is and always has been an enforceable code of professional ethics. If Congress thinks a SC justice, or any federal judge, has violated “professional ethics”, then Congress has the power to impeach and remove. Of course, that would require Congress itself to have some understanding of ethics, which is at best, unlikely. Impeachment and removal is the only power Congress has to remove a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Article III, Section 1, states that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” That’s all. Unless included in a Constitutional amendment which, by the way is what Biden proposes, term limits would violate the Constitution. The only way to make term limits possible is through an amendment. While Gorsuch might think term limits would be bad policy, I’m pretty sure he would accept them if enacted as an amendment.
Nothing Gorsuch has ever said comes even close to your conclusion that he believes the SC and the President are above the law. Certainly, Gorsuch knows that the President is not above the law and, again, I’m betting that Gorsuch would accept bad policy if it were enacted in accordance with the Constitution. Congress passing a law that violates the Constitution would not qualify as such.
I love how Dennis always has to tell Jonathan what someone said.
His a good court jester
Is it “good behavior” for Justices to receive millions in gifts from billionaires with business before the Court?
That has not happened. Your insinuation that it has is a damned filthy lie, and is probably actionable defamation that would survive Sullivan. Harlan Crowe has never had any business before the Court, and there is no reason to expect he ever will. Were some case ever to come up to which he is a party, then of course his good friend Justice Thomas would recuse himself; there’s not even a question about that, because unlike you Thomas is a person of stainless steel integrity.
Congress does not have the power to impose term limits on federal judges, let alone Supreme Court justices. Nor does it have the power to reassign Supreme Court justices to other courts. It can enact all the “ethics codes” it likes, but it can’t enforce them except by impeachment, which requires 2/3 of the senate.
This is the quintessential thinking of the socialist mind. The eventual goal is to police the world and to form a chain of prison islands also known as a Gulag Archipelago. It’s been done before so we should not be surprised that socialist continue the same tradition today. They killed and imprisoned their political enemies then so why not now? The socialist, Tim Walz has also called for the policing of disinformation. History proves that the parallels are indisputable.
It’s just one big socialist globe! ☺
It seems the British are using quite a subjective standard when it comes to free speech. Here, you can say what you want unless it is libel or slander with intent. The US’ First Amendment is showing itself unique in the world and protects the “natural right” given by God — and not man — to speak their mind’s thoughts openly. Europe is moving in the direction of its forebears when what was legal was determined by kings and queens and not any binding written instrument. History is, indeed, repeating itself.
While the US and the UK have an extradition treaty in place, it will not function under these circumstances. The US is unlikely (at least under a Republican administration) to extradite any US citizen whose actions under the First Amendment are legal here. Rather than get into a pi**ing contest between governments over what speech is proscribed and what isn’t, the UK would be better off taking action to ban the social media company from operating in its country. If the UK doesn’t want the US brand of free speech then removing the social media platform after robust debate in Parliament seems preferable.
Even under a Democrat administration such extraditions would be impossible, because the courts will not allow them.
Next up for anti-free speech governments is to take a page from history and establish the “Malicious Attacks” law the Nazis found useful in 1933 and beyond.
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/speaking-whispers
Arresting people without evidence of an actual physical crime does not only happen in Great Britain. It happened in America courtesy of one Kamala Harris. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/02/joe-biden/debate-biden-said-google-1000-prisoners-freed-kama/. Harris built her reputation on the backs of black men before she said she was black.
Rather bold to draw conclusions when they haven’t revealed the killer’s motives yet. Care to hazard a guess why they haven’t? An “abundance of caution”, perhaps?
England has made a very poor bed for itself and now must sleep in it. The European elite enabled unsustainable immigration of peoples across the continent, under the guise of asylum, who have almost no concept of civil society, and in this case English society; English authorities are trying to force the middle and lower class English to simply accept the crime and costs. The worst of this was allowing the “Asian grooming gangs”, a euphemism meant to obscure the mass rape of working class minor girls by Pakistani gangs, to operate with impunity. Impunity is not even quite the right word — the English police practically enabled it. This went on for years and probably still does.
The people are quite feed-up with two-tiered justice and the usual hooligans take advantage of the situation. Why voters didn’t understand that a Starmer government would be even worse in this regard than the four dismal conservative governments that came before I cannot explain, but they probably felt they must provide some accountability to the Tories. Unfortunately what was left at that point was Labour.
There are lessons galore for the U.S. in this. Unfortunately our elites are as craven, incompetent, disconnected and stupid as theirs’.
Exactly!👍
WOW!!!!!! Arrested for free speech but VIOLENT crimes are OK????? What has happened to the world? 🙁
No one has been arrested for free speech. The convictions in the UK for online offences relating to the recent riots have been for inciting criminal violence. A very big difference. Unless a Yank has suggested that a hotel should be burnt down, or people attacked because of their ethnicity, no one is remotely coming for them, even if the police wanted to do so.
True. They weren’t arrested for free speech. The were arrested for government-restricted speech.
Under US law, if someone specifically encouraged online physical harm against black people, or a former President, would that be regarded as protected First Amendment speech?
In Brandenburg vs. Ohio, our Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” There must be an actual act, rather than merely stating a wish.
How do you define “specifically encouraged”? If you provide financial, materiel, operational or logistical support to a criminal group, then you would definitely be guilty of one or several crimes. If you assert that the world would be a nicer place if a certain person, institution or group ceased to exist, then you would probably not be guilty of anything because you certainly didn’t produce lawless action and it would be extremely difficult to prove that you incited lawless action. I’m sure there’s a lot of grey in all this, but I imagine that the burden on prosecution would be formidable.
We’re not that big on thought crimes over here.
By the way, in regard to another of your posts, I don’t think that you understand how we view unalienable rights like freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not grant those rights for us. What is does is secure those rights by preventing the Congress from passing any law restricting rights that we are endowed with by whatever created us (God, evolution, etc.). Natural rights are not the government’s to hand out like party favors (sic). They are inherent and not to be taken away from us (and we’ll fight like hell if anyone tries).
Oh, I do understand. You are entitled to view them as natural rights (but, respectfully, in my view wrong). In that, Americans are pretty unique.
We do not. In Britain we regard freedom of speech as a principle, but one that has to be tempered by common sense. Incitement to violence is not regarded as protected speech. Political debate rightly ensues when the boundary between principle and common sense becomes the issue, one or other side pushing the boundary. Where we are, largely, blessed is a refusal to allow judges and prosecutors to be elected; they are appointed without reference to political views and a lot of reference to basic legal competence. Yes, occasionally daft individuals, or ones with an agenda, get appointed, but the batting average is pretty good overall.
In the cases where individuals here have already been convicted for online offences relating to the riots, it was for very specific encouragement of violence; eg, “Burn down that [named] hotel.” As far as I am aware, not one person in authority this side of the pond has specifically named in public any American as being accused of such incitement. As I have said before, this is a non-story, driven by thoughtless bravado from a police commissioner and a PM, who allowed themselves to be irritated by a motormouth tech billionaire, rather than a real agent provocateur. Even then, they did not name said billionaire – irritated but not entirely stupid. It is the media and commentators like the good Professor who have put two and two together and come up with five.
Many of us would regard perhaps the most corrupted element of US life to be your legal system, apart from SCOTUS. I have served alongside the US, very closely, in hot dusty and very bad tempered places and loved my comrades dearly. I admire much about the US, but not your legal system.
If you go back and re-read the conclusion of Brandenburg v. Ohio, you will see the words “inciting” and “incite.” Brandenburg does not regard incitement to violence as protected speech, if there is genuine incitement as determined under due process of law.
Where we part ways is that you seem to be saying that anything that might or may incite violence is not protected speech. American jurisprudence requires a little more than a scary but vague statement. If I may crib a line from A Man for All Seasons, it requires more than a supposition, it requires a fact.
You offer as an example what you call very specific encouragement of violence; eg, “Burn down that [named] hotel.” I would argue that this would not be per se a specific encouragement of violence. If I say these words to a known arsonist, there would certainly be cause to investigate the incident, but other factors may need to be determined before police could press charges. Do I know the arsonist? Does he work for me? Is he an old friend or a total stranger? Have I offered him a specific sum of money? Have I specified a specific time? Without that, merely posting “Burn down that [named] hotel” on a web site would be no more consequential than telling my dog to burn down that hotel.
You can, of course, say whatever you wish about our legal system being the most corrupted element of US life. We believe that due process should involve more than saying J’accuse and then carting someone we don’t like off to prison. It’s worked pretty well for us for nearly a quarter of a millennium, and although it is not perfect (as no legal system is), we cherish it dearly and sleep pretty well and night that natural rights are not threatened.
at night
CORR: we cherish it dearly and sleep pretty well at night knowing that our natural rights are not threatened
Free speech is FREE to everyone, even if, and especially if, people disagree with what you are saying. It is protected. If free speech only coverts what you agree with, then it isn’t free speech is it?
Tyranny
Sad, but oh so true. 🙁
How about Elvis Costello’s “Oliver’s (Cromwell) Army”…
There was a Checkpoint Charlie
He didn’t crack a smile
But it’s no laughing party
When you’ve been on the murder mile
Only takes one itchy trigger
One more widow one less white n*****r
Oliver’s Army is here to stay
Oliver’s Army are on their way
And I would rather be anywhere else
than here today
Freedom of speech was just one of the reasons our ancestors (those of us whose ancestors weren’t recent immigrants, meaning since the 1840s) fought to break away from the Crown.
If that really was the case, it would have been incorporated into the Constitution, rather having to become the First Amendment…
The 10% or so of colonialists who backed the Revolution (10% opposed, 80 % really did not care) did so for a variety of good reasons (eg annoyance with Parliament in Britain) and less noble reasons (fear of King George being very anti-slavery). Free speech was an afterthought.
Have you ever heard of the Declaration of independence? You should Google it. It’s a fascinating read.
How many soldiers in the Continental Army had read it? Precious few I should wager. The Declaration was a political statement trying to justify to Parliament the insurrection.
So what?
The Declaration certainly did seek to justify our revolution, stating that a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” In that, we were just being polite.
Beyond that, however, the Declaration clearly states a basis for separation that goes far beyond a list of grievances. It states the fundamental sacred principles upon which such action must be taken:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
That’s consent of the governed. Not strange women lying in ponds distributing swords.
Emancipation from rule from the throne never completely took hold in the UK. The Brits have never completely shaken off the belief that they are destined to be ruled by a King who has been anointed by God, and that, by Divine Right, this King gets to dole out or rescind any privileges his subjects may enjoy as he sees fit. One can clearly see the wisdom of this concept by taking a good look at the inbred twit (did I use the correct vowel in that word?) Charles, who currently occupies the English throne.
@ Oliver Reeder: Your statement has merit, but do not forget Paine’s “Common Sense”; read or read to others who couldn’t read. That book was widespread and covered much of the same ground.
@ Oliver Reeder: One of the disputes over the passage of the Bill of Rights was whether specific ideas were implied or not implied.
Agree that the Revolution wasn’t fought for free speech; but it wasn’t an afterthought. The notion of free speech was baked deeply into the political philosophy of the founding generation, although slaves of course had no free speech rights. Also, from what I’ve read, fears of British policy on anti-slavery are much exaggerated as a cause of the Revolution. Rather, the independence movement was based primarily on demands for more self-governance and increasing objections to taxes and economic policies, which were viewed as skewed against the colonies.
“Also, from what I’ve read, fears of British policy on anti-slavery are much exaggerated as a cause of the Revolution.”
@ hcohn2: Britain abolished slavery on its shores and then the transport of slaves where Britain patrolled the seas to cut down on the slave trade. However, slavery persisted in the Caribbean countries until a few decades before the Civil War and a bit later for the East India Company. Based on that information, I would agree with you.
If that really was the case, it would have been incorporated into the Constitution, rather having to become the First Amendment…
Are you purposely acting like a spastic idiot?
The Bill of Rights was not an afterthought, dum dum.
Your assertion is pointless anyway, because every amendment is an equal part of the whole. Get a grip on yourself.
Is your drivel what they teach in Britain??? LMAO
“fear of King George being very anti-slavery”
Interesting. If the Brit monarchy at the time of the American Revolution was so very opposed to slavery, to what do you ascribe the claim in this article that Britain only stopped supporting the slave trade in 1838 AFTER THE PROFIT WAS GONE OUT OF IT? Seems like opportunistic hypocrisy to me.
“After 1838, with both slavery and the apprenticeship system at an end in Britain’s Atlantic empire, the British monarchy publicly supported the anti-slavery cause for the first time. ”
Throne of Blood – It’s time for the British royal family to make amends for centuries of profiting from slavery:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/british-royal-family-slavery-reparations.html
The First Amendment was added because the Constitution was not going to be ratified unless it addressed rights. There are NO rights expressed in the Constitution itself.
After demanding the extradition of Julian Assange for much the same type of thing, the US is in a very weak position to refuse extradition. Except, of course, we’re bigger than they are and any administration that agreed to extradite US citizens to be tried for thought crimes would pay very serious consequences at the ballot box.
You get the government you deserve.
Unfortunately, in a pure democracy, you get the government other people vote for.
A bit of context which Professor Turley, if he knew anything about British politics, media or the exercise (rather than theory) of English criminal law would do well to understand.
1) Sir Mark Rowley is a rather poor police officer, who has risen to the top by avoiding real police work. He certainly does not have a good grasp of extradition matters. He is also desperate to seem to have a grip on the disorder that has broken out, having singularly failed to grip the disorder caused in London by pro-Palestinian protestors; that is why he, a new left wing government suddenly faced with the reality of wielding political power, and a mainstream media largely still giving said new government the benefit of the doubt, are so keen to portray the disorder as “far right racism.”
2) Ditto for Sir Keir Starmer, now Prime Minister, but a left wing KC and the second worst Director of Public Prosecutions in British history. Desperate to appear decisive on crime.
3) We of course do not have a First Amendment, but that is because “Free Speech” is not an inherent and inalienable human right, but a political right given (slightly belatedly) to US citizens under said First Amendment. I respect Prof Turley when he talks about free speech in US matters in the context of your US Constitution. I despair of him wittering on about it in other countries as if it was anything more than a political right in the USA. Note that all but one of the examples listed by Prof Turley about the so called deterioration in free speech under English law are actually arrests, not convictions. Guess what, policemen overreached themselves, the judicial process in most cases recognised and rejected that overreach. Prof Turley really ought not to rely on the Daily Mail as a source, it is like relying on the National Enquirer for the finer points of Judge Cannon’s rulings re: Trump and Smith.
4) No one mentioned Americans being extradited. Musk is disliked here, especially by the media. Most of us Brits dislike him for his vicious libels against a heroic British cave rescuer who helped get the Thai teenagers out of a flooded cave a few years ago. The British media dislikes him because he is seen as pro-Trump, and our MSM, like yours, does not like the Orange One. A journo asked Sir Mark a damnfool question about Musk, who was having a b**ch fight on social media with Sir Keir; Starmer was a fool for rising to the provocation. Rowley witters on about keyboard warriors not being safe, even overseas. The US media and individuals such as Prof Turley have taken that and over-extrapolated it.
To be clear, the online offences to which Rowley referred, and for which a few individuals have already been sentenced here following the riots, require a clear incitement to disorder and/or violence, or very marked racism. One man, for example, has been jailed for encouraging people online to destroy a hotel where asylum seekers were thought to be staying. That is a clear criminal offence. Just disagreeing with the PM, and comparing (stupidly) English laws to Stalinism, as Musk did, is not a criminal offence.
Before anyone starts seeking extradition orders, much better legal minds than Starmer and Rowley will be involved. Is there really a criminal element to these online comments? Can we really link it to a named individual beyond doubt? Is it worth the considerable legal and diplomatic effort/expense to seek extradition? And do we have any realistic prospect of host country agreeing to extradition under their laws, because trying and failing will just make us look silly?
“‘Free Speech’ is not an inherent and inalienable human right, but a political right given . . .”
There is your fundamental error.
Individual rights are not “given,” granted, bestowed. They are not permissions from the government or any other institution. Rights (including free speech) are inherent in being an individual. Government’s only responsibility is to recognize and protect those rights.
You DO look silly
Jonathan: After the riots erupted in Great Britain Elon Musk posted on X “civil war is inevitable”. Musk was instrumental in spreading misinformation about the attacker of the 3 children–falsely claiming he was an Muslim illegal immigrant.
The Q is whether Musk can be prosecuted for his role in encouraging the riots? It’s doubtful the reach of UK law extends to having Musk arrested in the US and having him extradited. But I doubt Musk will be making any trips to the UK any time soon. However, there could be potential criminal liability for X in GB under the 1923 Online Safety Act for intentionally posting false information. That means Ofcom as the UK regulator could charge X executives if it can be proved they abetted the spreading of false information about the attacker.
Deliberately spreading false and misleading information and encouraging a “civil war” is not “free speech”. In some shape or form Elon Musk should be held accountable!
‘Dennis’, you’re here “Deliberately spreading false and misleading information”
every time you comment. “In some shape or form -YOU- should be held accountable!”
If ‘civil war’ broke out, would you call it ‘mostly peaceful’ if that was the talking point?
In the US, you can deliberately spread all the false information you want. Otherwise, 51 alleged national security folks would be in jail at this very moment for doing just that with Hunter’s laptop. They would be in prison cells right next to Anthony Fauci.
The UK has never had First Amendment free speech rights. But the US does. The UK has no alternative but to accept that.
Excellent point, Aimee. And they did it to influence an election.
The 51 actually attacked democracy with the imprimatur of the state powering and amplifying their reach.
Every time any (all) Democrat said Biden was “sharp as a tack” they were lying in furtherance of subverting democracy. Every time Scary Poppins talked about her version of mis and dis information she was attacking democracy…and the state was going to put her in charge of actual state run power centers in order to spread the lies.
Dennis is a lying dispenser of misinformation and I wouldn’t bet against him being a paid partisan operative. I saw a piece last week that some “influencer” (is their any more loathsome word in today’s world) was paid by Democrats up to $10,000 to “opine” in favor of the regime.
One last point. How about what they are doing to Tulsi Gabbard? This is the Stasi if the Stasi had today’s technology and an unlimited budget. Oh, and the support of about 45% of the population.
“How about what they are doing to Tulsi Gabbard?”
It frightens, and saddens, me to say that I see the lack of public outcry over the treatment of Gabbard (who the left appeared to regard as one of their own until recently) as a telling barometer of just how close we are to the point that a majority of the population would willing tolerate a truly totalitarian regime.
People will vote for the Democratic Party as long as they get a government check.
HullBobby,
What has not occurred to Dennis, the liar, is that the Muslims in the UK, have already declared civil war on the UK.
You can see it by their attacks on innocent people and I am talking about years prior to the recent riots.
You can see it by their attacks on British culture.
You can see it by their attacks on common decency.
So, Elon Musk was correct in that a civil war is inevitable.
It is on going now. People like Dennis are just too stupid to see it.
Let’s not forget the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.
Beg to differ, encouraging civil war in the US is definitely free speech. Civil liberties have taken a backseat in Great Britain because authorities are cowards. And what is it they’re afraid of? Civil war? And what is the alternative, a cultural bow as virtual apoptosis to an unwanted unwelcome immigrant population?
Thanks to Prof. Turley for reminding us of the vileness of Hillary Clinton, willing to sell out the freedom of her fellow citizens to please a global elite. Camel Harris is probably just as bad.
Actual cost to taxpayers to maintain
10 million new immigrants ?
Anyone?
Closer to 20 million
Airstrip One is here….