Free Speech, International, Politics

London Calling: Police Chief Threatens to Arrest People Around the World For Online Speech

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).

230 thoughts on “London Calling: Police Chief Threatens to Arrest People Around the World For Online Speech”

  2. Right on cue, this psychopathic tyrant is hoping to set a standard for coming NWO. He’s following his deranged programming, which was no doubt done through satanic pedo-grooming, abuse & conditioning, much like that of other “leaders” such as Macron, Merkl, Trudeau etc.etc.. all MK Ultra groomed from a young age.

  4. GUESS ITS TIME TO ELIMINATE THOSE KIND OF PARASITES LIKE BRITISH COPS… COME AND GET ME YOU DOUBLE WANKER DICK LICKING FAGOT CHIEF OF THE MVZZIE INVADERS. COME AND TRY TO ARREST ME!! OH BRING YOUR OWN DISPOSABLE BAG, THE FARREL HOGS MAY NOT EAT YOUR STINKY FVCKING PITS!!! COWARDS!!!!!

  6. Would a bar keeper in London disparaging an ice cold American beer (not Bud Light mind you) be considered hate speech?

  8. “The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates.”

    What you describe isn’t decline of free speech, it’s a few incidents of over-zealous police that have been widely reported, thanks to free speech. If there were any real issues with free speech, you’d get people refusing to answer pretty straight-forward, innocent questions. For example, you’d get people refusing to answer questions like: “What is climate change?” Or: “What is a vaccine?”

    1. Apparently, you’ve never heard of the expression “pour encourager les autres.”

  9. “London Calling” is radical leftist anti-right wing anti-war song. Good one, Turley.

  10. Mr. Turley’s use of the lyrics from “London Calling” by the Clash frames what punk rock was all about. The game hasn’t changed, its just gotten worse, and no amount of navel gazing on either side will change our current political situations.
    Being a punk was about changing the status quo. Unless or until punks of every stripe decide to make needed changes, or unless some watery tart decides to lob a scimitar at me and declare me King Arthur, the people affected will need to make the changes themselves.
    The government is NOT here to help you, it never has been. It will fight you in every way possible. There is another line in this song which encapsulates what many people feel. “London is drowning and I live by the river”.

    1. “The government is NOT here to help you, it never has been.”

      Correct! Now if only ‘blue’ America who keep voting for bigger, more intrusive, more tyrannical government control over our lives would wake the F up.

  12. The U.S. Constitution, were it enforced, would prohibit any clamp-down on any speech. However, it is not enforced, because all enforcement is in government hands, and government doesn’t want itself restricted. And that includes those government-loving government appointees known as Supreme Court justices.

    The Constitution is a guarantee of limited government, that guarantee being made to the private sector. IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR! Rock Pig’s Word from Future presents a modified constitution that allows private-sector enforcement. Everyone should read it. It specifies a grand-jury procedure by which non-government citizens can quickly remove from office any blasted politician who comes anywhere near defying the constitution. Any politician or government employee who so much as utters a desire to limit speech will be removed within just a few weeks. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE!

    Instead of complaining and gossiping about the problem, let’s get off our behinds AND DO SOMETHING. Either we loudly push for and demand passage of an amendment that institutes this grand-jury method, or we start a new nation with this method built in to its constitution (www.unitedfreestates.com). Stop whining, and start acting!

  13. Professor Turley:
    I do hope you will devote a column to the Scott Ritter situation, specifically to the legitimacy of the claim that he violated FARA.
    The government claims Ritter “manipulated public opinion” while being paid by Russia.
    Well, how many Americans have manipulated public opinion while being paid by the (self-described) Jewish nation?

    1. Well, how many Americans have manipulated public opinion while being paid by the (self-described) Jewish nation?

      Zero. None at all. And your allegation, as well as your snide “self-described” exposes you as a filthy antisemite.

    2. FARA is unconstitutional. It was never prosecuted – until the left weaponized it politically.

      And the Ritter case is even more unconstitutional – the DOJ’s claim is that Ritter violated FARA as a journalist.
      So the DOJ is violating two distinct sections of the First amendment.

      The left likes to abuse words like manipulate.

      Was force or fraud involved – and because of the idiocy of NY courts we must say – Actual Fraud – where someone took the property of another by deceipt.

      Absent force or fraud – anything else is constitutionally protected free speech.

      1. John Say, I hate to disagree with you, but in this case I have to. Reporters (or as they like to call themselves, “journalists” have no more rights than anyone else. Even if FARA is unconstitutional (which I don’t believe), applying it to a reporter wouldn’t make it any more unconstitutional .

        The “freedom of speech and of the press” is nothing more or less than the right of anyone to communicate by speech or in print. It has nothing to do with the news industry, which has no more of a role in the constitution than do the plumbing industry or the hairdressing industry, and is certainly not a “fourth estate” (I’d bet that not one reporter in ten could name the first three).

        As for FARA, I don’t see a problem with it. Advocating anything, including the interests of foreign governments, is absolutely protected speech; but representing foreign governments is not. It’s not what Ritter has said that has got him in trouble, but the fact that he allegedly said it as the agent of a foreign government.

        Speech is speech, but it’s also an act, and it can be regulated or banned purely on the basis of its non-expressive aspects. E.g. burning a US flag can’t be treated more harshly than burning a Nazi flag, but burning flags in general may be punished if it violates the fire code. Likewise speaking on behalf of a foreign government is not protected, so long as the law doesn’t change based on what it is you’re saying for it. It can’t depend on whether the US government likes what you said. It has to be exactly the same, whether you advocated a Holocaust or you said “Good morning”. But given that caveat I can’t see a constitutional bar to FARA.

        1. John Say

          The “press” doesnt mean what you think it does. You sound like a spastic libturd with that.

        2. “as the agent of a foreign government”

          I would suggest he was stating his opinion as a patriotic American, an opinion which many Americans who have no financial connection to Russia share.

          Precisely what made him “an agent”?

  14. America went to war over a Tea Tax and powder laws. Like to see them come across the pond to police us.

    1. Whassa matter, Dogon, get up on the wrong side of your kippers this morning?

    1. Yes, it does. Treaties rank equal with federal statutes, and thus below the constitution.

  16. So lets say someone wanted to read all of Donald Trumps email. First they would want to either get access to his pc, either remotely or onsite (like the maintenance guy, the cleaning lady, etc) or remotely via most likely a trojan you got him to load on his system, possibly from an email or maybe a disc you mailed him, etc.

    This trojan wouldn’t do a lot, it’d just change his DNS servers to point to your rogue DNS servers.

    Then you’d want your own SMTP (mail server) which you’d configure online through any static IP circuit (like DSL, T1, Fiber, etc). But it would be your email server. You’d be in control.

    You might for example keep this server, oh I don’t know, in your basement perhaps….just for an example mind you.

    You’d change the MX records on (records that tell your email client where your email server is) on your rogue DNS server to point to your own mail server.

    Your email client will now connect to your SMTP server not knowing the difference because not only is SMTP is a very simple protocol (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), your DNS server telling it this is the right server.

    So now your email client is connecting to your mail server, then forwarding your emails onto the intended recipient. Only you’ll have a copy of all Mr Trumps messages, right there in your basement… , … or wherever you choose to keep your secret email server, I mean it could be somewhere else in your house but a basements a pretty good choice…. nice and cool down there, and its private in case you don’t want anyone to know you have one… or something like that.

    And even if the session is encrypted, say MR Trumps email clients using TLS to connect to his real mail server which encrypts the message in transmission, … you’re now the one completing the encryption session, not his real server, you’re doing the encryption to the email client, meaning, … you’ve got the encryption key. So not encrypted to you.

    So yea…if you wanted to have copies of all Mr Trumps emails….your own email server in your own house ..say hidden away down your basement… 😐 , …that would be a good step 1.

    1. BTW , when I say “your email client” I mean of course Mr Trumps email client.

  17. Mr. Turley: I don’t believe you commented on what protection American citizens have against someone like Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley going after you. For example, if he chose to try to go after (whatever that means in legal terms, such as charge, prosecute, extradite, etc) Elon Musk, what protections would Mr. Musk (or any other US Citizen have)? I think your comments regarding this question would have broad interest to your readers. Thank you for your daily comments.

  18. “I wrote a book called The Perfect Police State. I interviewed 140+ people under constant surveillance in China in their homes and local shops.

    The intellectuals among them told me to worry about the future of the West as police forces learn to monitor social media.

    They called this stage one: the state draws a line around your thoughts and tells you not to cross it.

    But the line is a riddle. You don’t know exactly what will get you in trouble. And the hazy messaging is meant to be that way.

    Look at the UK government’s post: there’s no specifics, just that you should think twice and self-censor your posts. If someone takes offense and reports you, you’re flagged by police, maybe headed for the slammer.

    But you don’t know why until they knock on your door.

    I never thought I’d say this. Sure, the riots are terrible. But what’s happening to free speech in the UK is deeply worrisome.” @geoffrey_cain

    WAKE UP, AMERICA.
    A vote for Harris-Walz is a vote for straight-up FASCISM.

    1. BEWARE AMERICA.
      Recall the TWITTER files showed us that the FBI (Stasi/Gestapo) is monitoring/policiing our social media in conjunction with Big Tech oligarchs.

      1. Trump will try, but he isn’t going to beat this globalist oligarchy, deep state takeover of America.
        It’s coming, no matter how hard we fight, whether you want it or not.
        Brace for impact.

      1. The drunkard can say whatever his wandering mind desires. Korsakoff’s is a terrible disease. We pity you.

        1. Korsakoff’s? Huh? Your neurons are not connecting. Too bad. Take some B vitamins.

  19. “The Harris-Walz DOJ will sign your extradition papers, and their FBI-Stasi will arrest you and put you on the plane to the UK in handcuffs.
    Believe it.”

    1. “Welcome to the UK-SSR.
      Better self censor, just to be sure you don’t go to prison.”

      COMING SOON TO AMERICA
      if you foolishly vote for it.

      1. Actually, the oligarchs plan to steal another election and you will get their fascism shoved down your throat, anyway, whether you voted for it or not.

        WAKE UP!

Comments are closed.