Below is my column in Fox.com on the arrest of a well-known comedian in Great Britain. While the three social media posts in question were political commentary rather than jokes, the arrest of Graham Linehan is only the latest arrest of a comedian as part of the global crackdown on free speech. The postings would be considered protected speech in the United States and should be protected anywhere. The rising censorship is literally no joke in various Western countries.
Here is the column:
In the anti-free speech community, the most intolerable form of speech often seems to be humor. For thousands of years, satire and parody have proven to be the most penetrating —and at times, irritating —forms of political speech. Even with absolute rulers, court jesters were often the few figures who could challenge a king. As Shakespeare wrote in King Lear, “jesters do oft prove prophets.”
In the case of comedian Graham Linehan, he has unwittingly become a prophet for the death of not just free speech, but humor, in the United Kingdom. The co-creator of the U.K. sitcom “Father Ted” was arrested at London Heathrow Airport, allegedly over several social media posts criticizing transgender activists. The posts were not jokes, but political commentary.
Linehan ended up in the hospital after he said that he was met with five armed officers, who told him he was being arrested over three posts on X. In his posting, he felt the need as a comedic writer to emphasize “no, I promise you, I am not making this up.”
He said that officers interrogated him over a post in which he wrote, “If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act.” He added that people would be compelled to make a scene, call the police, or even “punch” the offender.
London’s Metropolitan Police admits that it did indeed arrest a man “in relation to posts on X.” Linehan said that he was told that there would be only one bail condition “I am not to go on Twitter. That’s it. No threats, no speeches about the seriousness of my crimes – just a legal gag order designed to shut me up while I’m in the U.K..”
For those who live in Great Britain or other European countries, this is hardly surprising. The government has steadily increased its criminalization and regulation of speech, including religious and political speech, under such laws as the Communications Act of 2003 and the Online Safety Act of 2023.
British citizens are not alone. For years, free speech has been no laughing matter in Europe and other parts of the world. Comedians have been charged in countries ranging from France to Germany to Brazil to Turkey to Canada for insulting jokes.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss how free speech is in free fall in Europe, where the European Union is pushing for global censorship of social media, including American companies. The most triggering sound for many today is the sound of laughter from those who hold opposing views.
In Scotland, comedians opposed a draconian law that threatened to criminalize a wide swath of jokes. It would allow the arrest of anyone deemed guilty of “stirring up hatred” against a group of persons and even allowed for arrests for possessing inflammatory material with a view to communicating the material.
The pathological lack of humor is shared by many in this country. In Hawaii, comedians and others opposed a law that criminalizes “recklessly” distributing “materially deceptive media.” At universities, the dominant anti-free speech culture is raising not just a generation of speech phobics but humorless speech phobics.
Past polls showed that as many as six out of ten students viewed “offensive jokes” to be ‘hate speech.” Comedians have been routinely canceled on campuses and many will no longer perform at colleges and universities due to the intolerance.
The public itself still values edgy comedy. That is shown by the ratings of shows like Gutfeld! which has long dominated network evening comedy shows. It turns out that the public does not want humor that runs only from the left to the far left. “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” was reportedly gushing not just viewers but $50 million a year with its left-only humor shtick.
Ironically, a country that brought us Monty Python is now mainstreaming George Orwell. In Great Britain, the range of acceptable humor is left to the government to decide. It is a standard that seems to follow the dubious lead of Potter Stewart on recognizing pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”
Comedians like Linehan are left with permissible humor dictated by the anemic comedic stylings of the far left or that of the Metropolitan Police.
Empowered by such censorship laws, activists often seem to spend more time trying to silence others in Europe than speaking for themselves. Individuals and groups will often file criminal complaints against those with opposing views. That has included an unrelenting campaign against author J.K. Rowling and others who have opposed transgender policies as destroying feminist gains in sports and other fields.
Of course, censorship itself is now a form of release for the humor-challenged and viewpoint-intolerant. While most sensible people look at Linehan’s arrest with horror, it was a thrill, even fun, for those who use these laws. There is little fear that these laws could be used against themselves. After all, Will Rogers explained “everything is funny, as long as it’s happening to somebody else.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
…which is why, “we” are over here, and “they” are over there.
Britain didn’t just wake up and lose their minds, this has been coming on since post WWII, when the Marxist Socialists in their politic, did an TDS on Winston Churchill. With the exception of a couple of contractions, like Margaret Thatcher, and now Farage, the leftists in England managed to give away the entire Empire just as Carter gave away the Panama Canal.
It’s like the old story that most families know. Someone who grew old, feeble in the head and a bit deranged, gazing terrified at the light at the other end of the tunnel, and then proceeds out of desperation of hope to buy the stairway to Heaven and give away the entire family holdings to some TV preacher show.
Soft in the heart is not a bad thing, unless connected to soft in the head.
—————————————————————-
–Oddball
“Take it easy Big Joe, some of these people got sensitive feelings.”
The UK gave away its empire because it could no longer afford it. It’s as simple as that. An empire is a drain on a country’s resources, and the post-war UK was poor.
That’s the same reason why, when Malta wanted to join the UK, the UK refused and forced independence on it. They took one look at how much maintaining Malta would cost them and said no thank you.
This may seen contrarian to some of you.
Laws were made for People to abide by them. Not to provoke, amuse, or be a sarcastic prose.
If you don’t like a Law, then rally the representative of the Legislative Body that created them, to change it.
`Do Something About It’. Apathy & Sarcasm is not the answer to your problems, Sitting around and using them as a punchline is not going to make the change your concerned about.
Graham Linehan going to Jail won’t make a difference. It’s but a fart in a Hurricane. Great Britain isn’t so ‘Great Again’, and won’t be until the People of Great Britain get up and make the changes themselves by hammering the Parliament.
Us Yanks had a problem, so we elected Donald Trump to make the corrections We wanted to make this Country Great Again.
Coming this 2026 Mid-Term we will make more corrections to the desires of the Populous. And so it works that way.
It is no joke Bloke, get off your Ass and get moving. 🇬🇧 | 🏴
Re: Parliament of the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom
So, people can threaten others with impunity on social media sites? Got it! Try threatening to punch Pres. Trump in the face and see where that gets you? Even comedians can not yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, or ‘bomb’ while on an airplane.
Your logical fallacy is…false dichotomy!
“…So, people can threaten others with impunity on social media sites? Got it! …”
^^^ SARCASM AGAIN ^^^
What a wasted Generation.
Ano
You liar. You have people who threaten Prez Trump day after day. Grow a brain.
Ireland is making the move: Re
‘The time for real change is now!’ — Conor McGregor urges Irish to lobby councilors for presidential bid
In a video posted on social media, McGregor attacked the government over homelessness, migration, and security
Former MMA champion Conor McGregor has urged his online supporters to pressure local councilors into nominating him as a candidate for the Irish presidency.
In a video filmed outside Government Buildings in Dublin, McGregor attacked the government over homelessness, migration, and security. “We have seen the homelessness of Irish children rise to levels unprecedented, proving this government’s refusal to abide by and respect our proclamation where all children of Irish are to be cherished. Instead, our children abandoned,” he said.
By: Thomas Brooke ~ September 04, 2025 20:55
https://rmx.news/article/the-time-for-real-change-is-now-conor-mcgregor-urges-irish-to-lobby-councillors-for-presidential-bid/
*. The UK is giving quarter to the terrorist cult of slaves called Islam. Remove their buildings that worship slavery. Hagar was a slave and shrouded women reflect it. Terrorism.
*. ^^^ they cling to the yoke of slavery. It’s truly a lesser belief system. It’s captives find relief in the murder of Jewish people as common serial killers find relief.
I’d be arrested in the UK. Come away from slavery and take the light yoke of Jesus Christ, a free man. I’d be arrested for that, too.
Have the nazi reincarnated as moslems? 🤔
Anonymous says that she can’t understand why MAGA people demand proof. She can’t understand why people won’t just take her at her word without question. Then she shifts the blame to others who she says are too lazy to look it up for themselves. The responsibility to provide supporting evidence exists not with the reader but with the presenter of opinion. This is the reason that there are footnotes at the back of a book or at the conclusion of a medical treatment presentation. Imagine if an author did not supply supporting information by many sources. Writers who do so are correctly considered hacks and under further scrutiny are eventually exposed. Like Anonymous they always blame the reader for not taking their musings as the unquestionable gospel truth. The apt description is narcissism.
TiT,
Well said. There are many things the annony moron asserts as truth without backing up any of their claims. Then when we debunk them with links to facts, the annony moron will either disappear or then plays word games and tries to deflect from the facts.
Although I must admit, I will occasionally lay traps for our fine leftist friends, watch them take the bait and drop the trap on them with links to facts. It is ever so easy.
Upstate : kind of like an a -noyance as your source, anyway who needs facts we are journalists do not question our honor..isty!
Personally, I think that if the world was more like a (criminal) courtroom, where the burden of proof lies with the accuser and not the accused, the world would be a better place.
Look no farther than the UK for the Islamic Jihad and forced Communism the Democratic National Communist (DNC) is attempting to institute here in the USA. Wake up America!
*. Americans live by free speech. We do so because of the inalienable truth of free will. Just as we know there are lies we know their is truth in response. So it is a foundation of the justice system. Without free speech who can speak truth?
Nigel Farage, testifying before Congress, has some very insightful words on this incident and the broader context in Europe. Anyone know who the beautiful woman over his left shoulder is? Natalie Winters perhaps?
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1963259438623752637
*. Yes, Prime Minister Nigel Farage.
*. The young men are handsome, too.
The Ministry of Truth, run by the NeoMarxist Philosopher Kings and Queens, is indeed a stultifying, intellectually stagnant cesspool. A complete and utter betrayal of the Culture of Critical Discourse, the coin of the realm of academia.
Even second generation NeoMarxist-in-Chief Jurgen Habermas called for rational discourse (‘communicative rationality’) as the means for guiding society, the social contract as it were. Instead we get irrational bellowing, people ‘yelling at each other and beating each other up’, the wages of dull political correctness and its attendant cancel culture.
People that say thank heavens that we are protected by the Constitution are wrong.
4 years ago the Democrats tried to ban the filibuster and if not for the votes of Manchin and Sinema they would have done so.
After they ended the filibuster they would have, AS THEY SAID, added 4 or 5 seats to the Court. Now after adding 5 new Kayanji Brown Jacksons to the Court does anyone think the Court would not have looked at the Constitution differently? Can you not see the radical leftist approach to cases involving speech, guns and immigration making us Britain?
They also would have added 2 new liberal states to the EC as well.
The Senate needs to vote on ending the filibuster right now in order to get these rascals on record as opposing it
@hullbobby
I prefer to say thank heavens for the Constitution, so we’d *better* defend it, because you are correct, though I’m undecided about the filibuster, specifically. The dems have at last openly stated what you’ve elucidated is precisely what they’ll do ‘when’ they regain power; if they ever do, there aren’t many alternatives to the filibuster at present. IMO, not enough time has passed to cement a foundation to just start throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I could, of course, be wrong.
No natter their madness, the dems have right to have a party, even though they will almost certainly only get more insane, and in the process, hopefully continue to repulse sane people.
James, I am unsure of the efficacy of the filibuster but what I do know is that the Democrats try to end it when they have a majority while the Republicans don’t reciprocate.
Get the damn Democrats on record while they are in the minority to at least make them even more hypocritical when they switch again.
Or, maybe end it now, lock in voter ID, cessation of mail in ballots, and a 9 member Court.
In other words, play by their rules for a change.
@hullbobby
Very much agreed.
The IT Crowd and Black Books were both better than Father Ted IMO. But I digress.
The Left has to censor people, since they have no compelling arguments to support their positions on the issues of the day, including censorship. Protect 1A – it is the primary barrier to a reign of witches
It’s war, Whig, without guns. It’s removing speech or prison and you’ll convert peacefully or you’ll die. Save your life and convert.
That’s what’s happening but it’s bonkers because Islam will kill trans people. It’s bonkers.
Seems the police had a problem with the statement but there apparently was no act. In the US I believe it would almost always require an act to accompany the statement to get an arrest except in some rare well defined cases. I dislike unpleasant language as much as anyone but I have yet to hear anything said that I thought required an arrest. Even at provocative political demonstrations.
Not being British I have to wonder whether this is an act by overzealous police or was this arrest perpetrated by the Crown Prosecutor. That is not clear here except for the statement that he was told not to go back on X (twitter). Was this an act of intimidation with no intent to hold for any length of time or was this actually a sanctioned government policy backed up by the prosecutor. Hard to tell here from an American point of view.
It seems an inappropriate arrest from my point of view but it is the UK and not the US. I do not like the trend of things there.
GEB the Stupid.
You seem to think that the police should not have arrested Linehan because “there was no act”.
Of course there was in fact an act, which Turley very conveniently omits to mention in order to make this episode fit his absurd assertions.
Linehan is also charged with criminal damage. The person who he was harassing confronted Linehan outside a conference and used his phone to document the interaction. Linehan physically assaulted the individual, grabbed the phone, threw it in the street and destroyed it. Hence the charge of criminal damage.
The harassment charge was brought in support of the criminal damage charge to demonstrate motive.
Turley very conveniently fails to mention any of this, because it does not fit the false narrative he is trying to establish.
@Anonymous
You’re going to need to provide a source.
James “l love free speech, BUT……..”
Why do you MAGA morons always play this stupid game of demanding proof.
Have you ever heard of Google.
Just Google Graham Linehan. There are dozens of stories about this.
But since you are so pathetically helpless, here is one link
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpw152kq80wo
I would further add that you MAGA morons eagerly wallow in the muck that Turley shovels out every day without question.
Why don’t you make the same demands of Turley ????
He does not provide a single source for his absurd story above.
We do not make demands of the good professor as we are not unhinged leftists who demand everything of everyone else to do what they want. Here in America, it is a free country. He can write about whatever he wants.
As I suspected.
You are simply confirming that you are willing to unquestionably accept whatever Turley shovels your way at a face value.
This is what happens in cults, and how cults reinforce the unquestioning faith of their completely mindless members.
You suspect wrongly, as usual. On some topics the professor brings up, I have already read about them elsewhere. Others are of such law that, not being a lawyer, I have nothing to comment on or will wait and see what will turn up in the courts i.e. the 80 some old gentleman and his plane in Alaska and a six pack of beer. It is not my place to demand anything of the good professor. It is his blog. I have free will to come here and read it or not. Through other sources I am well aware of the anti-free speech movement in the UK and the EU.
MAGA MAGA MAGA blah blah blah. You are mentally ill.
PT shows the accused is being harassed for speech resulting in the plaintiff’s continued harassment and phone throwing. A restraining order is appropriate. The plaintiff may not be within x feet of accused.
@Anonymous
There is nothing in that piece to counter the notion that Britain is in the grip of fascism that criminally punishes wrong-think or wrong-speech. Heaven help them. And the phone thing is weak sauce given your past support of stealing hats from children minding their own business. 🤷🏽♂️
I’ve been writing on this blog for many months and in all that time I have seen Anonymous post a link supporting her position only twice. She says we are too lazy to look it up for ourselves but I say that she is the one who is too lazy to post a source. Is copy and paste such a daunting task. I often have posted a source out of respect for those who read my posts and I believe it is my responsibility to reinforce my thinking with the use of confirming information. On the other hand Anonymous with her nose in the air tells us to look it up for ourselves. Her obvious inference is that MAGA people are too stupid to look it up for themselves. Snobbery in its finest hour. Dishonesty in its worst.
*. From the link it is evident the government has taken the side of trans. That leaves the accused without an advocate. Apparently…
While the BBC news article on the trial of Graham Linehan that you cite does provide some context, it does not directly pertain to the arrest at Heathrow. At the end of the article it states, “This trial is not connected to the allegations that led to Mr Linehan’s much-publicised arrest at Heathrow Airport on Monday.” Although Mr. Linehan is a controversial figure, he should have his free speech rights whether or not one agrees with him. Prof. Turley quite properly relates this story as an indication of the deterioration of free speech rights in the UK specifically and Europe in general.
And nowhere in the link you provided didn’t mention any evidence that Graham Linehan grabbed the alleged victim’s phone and threw it. Hence the reason why the article states this:
“The prosecution alleges Mr Linehan “relentlessly” posted abusive comments about Sophia Brooks, 18, on social media last October, before throwing her phone in a road.”
The keyword here is “alleges.” The prosecution will have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Graham Linehan had indeed grabbed the alleged victim’s phone and threw it onto the road. Unless there was a third party who witness the altercation, any reasonable member of the jury may doubt the prosecution’s course of events.
The source is AI.
PT says Linehan was taken to hospital? Was he beaten by police?
Rabble:
Heart-related stress, caused by sudden detainment and interrogation.
Gigi as usual resorts to half truths to justify her payments by Chorus as a leftist “influencer”
From the BBC
Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan “relentlessly” posted abusive comments about a teenage transgender campaigner on social media before throwing her phone in a road, a court has been told.
The Irish writer is on trial in London on charges of harassment and criminal damage. He has pleaded not guilty.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court was told that the 57-year-old used social media to publish a series of “abusive and vindictive” posts about Sophia Brooks.
This trial is not connected to the allegations that led to his much-publicised arrest at Heathrow Airport on Monday
GEB,
Well said. In anti-free speech countries, there need not be an act. Just a statement, or joke suffices as criminal. What to be learned here, do not visit these anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-free speech countries. Review our own Constitution, Bill of Rights and be thankful.
There was an act you idiot.
Read what I said above.
Linehan is also charged with criminal damage because he destroyed the cell phone of the complainant in the course of a physical confrontation in the street.
The phone incident is a completely separate charge from the tweets. Get your facts straight before calling others an idiot.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/tv-writer-graham-linehans-arrest-transgender-x-posts-sparks-free-speec-rcna228781
Anonymous
Thank you. Not surprised. That particular troll is not just deceitful but toxic; as I said, the phone thing is weak sauce on so many levels, and not the point. Time to start ignoring them again. The part Turley’s this piece in relation to humor could’ve been written directly at them; if it isn’t an act for money, can’t imagine living in that bitter and hateful brain.
*in Turley’s piece
James – (that was me, I forgot to sign in) – the anonymous troll seems to blow smoke to just try and confuse people. It is a very small amount of work to google the topic and come up with the facts, which invariably contradict the troll. I don’t mind doing it because it shuts her up, as we see today, which in itself is satisfying.
OldManFromKS,
Thank you for posting the link to clarify the situation and debunk the troll.
Based off the information that is known thus far, it seems it was the trans guy who was harassing, and it may even be stalking of linchan.
That particular troll is a six-year-old with brain damage.
*. Restraining order of x feet from the accused is in order.
Thanks for the post.
*. AI hasn’t a sense of humor. Humor is a human characteristic.
Do you eat olives with your fingers? No, I eat them separately.
This can’t be referred to as merely reminiscent of Mao or the USSR anymore – it’s straight-up the same. The UK is just toast, and it could have easily been us were it not for our freedoms. The attacks on our 1A, 2A, and separation of powers won’t likely cease – neither can our defense if them.
Another thing about humor: great humor requires great intelligence and great open-mindedness – it is incompatible with indoctrination or hive mind by nature.
I really hope that least here in the states, this period in history will be remembered as a contained period of insanity. Wouldn’t be the first time we spit in the face of European convention while Europe itself was brought to the very brink. This arrest was a shock, nevertheless.
James,
Well said. I agree about this being a dark time of insanity. Unfortunately as we watch the UK and other EU countries circle the drain, I feel for some of those who are under the tyranny of those who lord over them. There are those who are pushing back by flying the Union Jack or St. George’s flag. As we have discussed before, there is talk about the possibility of a civil war not just in the UK but other EU countries as well.
@Upstate
I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I’ve thought similarly.
The Left has proven Hayek right far more than he ever expected. He thought socialism was just a threat to economic freedom, but it actually transmogrifies into a threat to most freedoms. It’s the deep-rooted psychology of the Left that has always been broken. Utopianism inevitably attracts more than its share of narcissists.
Ain’t just me that says so:
Michael Shellenberger is a national treasure. A few days ago I heard around an hour of this interview, and I was struck by how well informed and articulate he is.
This topic has been addressed before. The UK’s opposition to free speech follows the EU’s lead and has its roots in Islam and Sharia law. Insults and disrespect of Islam and its prophet can get one killed, and this has occurred all too frequently in Europe and the UK. In some cases, such grounds have been the cause of multiple murders of innocent people.
It would be improper to pass laws to stop non-Muslims from insulting Muslims but as long as you include everyone in your anti-insult legislation, it seems to work. Or so some think.
The UK is quickly becoming a Muslim-influential, if not Muslim-dominant, nation. Officially, the UK government says that 6 percent of the UK population is Muslim. Lost in the math is the fact that between 2011 and 2021, the Muslim population in the UK almost doubled (44% increase). In the USA, things are a bit different, with only 1.4 percent Muslim population. We have had similar problems as Europe and the UK but so far, we have not had to toss our free speech, although there are some who advocate doing so. Those who advocate this are mostly anti-USA folks to begin with and, therefore, are not listened to by most Americans.
Our founders were quite brilliant to realize that the antidote to hate speech was not less, but more, speech. This is the bedrock principle of the First Amendment. Nothing like it exists anywhere in the Muslim world or that of Europe and the UK, and surely nothing like it exists in Asia. De Tocqueville was correct. America is exceptionnel (meaning not superior but unique or exceptional).
“This topic has been addressed before. The UK’s opposition to free speech follows the EU’s lead and has its roots in Islam and Sharia law. Insults and disrespect of Islam and its prophet can get one killed, and this has occurred all too frequently in Europe and the UK.”
Has been addressed before? That statement is utterly delusional. We do not follow the EU’s lead – and as for Sharia law…
Look, the British approach to “free speech” is that is admirable, but that there are limits. It does not embrace actions, only words, despite your legal system’s decision to depart from the clear text of the First Amendment by making up non-verbal definitions of “speech”. And free speech cannot excuse incitement to violence (which is the alleged offence for which plod arrested Mr Linehan) nor treason, nor racial hatred, etc, etc.
Despite the ignorant claims of individual such as Turley and Vance, there is a very active debate in the UK as to whether certain specific issues, and the police’s understanding of the laws and their judgement in pursuing supposed breaches, are overstepping the mark. No one is questioning whether inciting violence or racial hatred should be prosecutable; but they are questioning whether the police are being over zealous. As I say, chucking a sandwich at a policeman is clearly an offence. But is it one that actually should be prosecuted, let alone attempted to be presented as a felony, by someone as deranged as Pirro? By the way, we don’t have this ridiculous distinction between felony and misdemeanour… In the UK, a sandwich hurling idiot would have been warned by the police, at worst handed a fine by a magistrate and told to grow up.
Anon: Apologies to my sensitive British cousins. I was not expecting any of them to be viewing such a message. I meant that the topic was discussed in this blog before (which it was). I agree with you that your countrymen will eventually awake to the dangers of limiting free speech. Currently, though, despite your promising review of the opposition, the Neville Chamberlains seem to have the floor on the issue. If I were to publicly recite for the world the American Declaration of Independence and then travel to your country, I very well might be met by Bobbies on Bicycles, Two by Two, and charged for insulting the King: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” (U.S. Decl. of Independ). But, alas, “England swings like a pendulum do,” and so, you are most correct that a brighter tomorrow is just around the corner. Again, sorry if my statements offended you. (Note:” This how we civilized colonialists settle differences.)
@Anonymous
‘Look, the British approach to “free speech” is that is admirable, but that there are limits.’
Yes. One of the many reasons they are failing. They never stopped treating their citizens as subjects or peasantry, the state replaced the monarchy. It’s just much more glaringly apparent now.
Gigi, in the UK you can get arrested for praying silently in front of an abortion clinic, no need to throw a sandwich.
@jjc
Wasn’t going to go there, but since you did: yep, I agree, it’s absolutely no surprise radical Islam is finding a welcome home in these places. A new Dark Ages, indeed.
*. Islam is a terrorist cult of the slave Hagar. Why do you people say it’s a religion? It’s a cult and there isn’t a reason to recognize it as other. Can’t you tell? 😂 it’s most like Stockholm Syndrome. They feel peaceful after slaughtering 1200 Israelis? Serial killers do, too.
Seems the UK has more in common with communist China then they do with freedom and liberty. More and more UK citizens are flying the Union Jack or the St. George’s flag. Good for them.
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
Winston Churchill
Humor is a great self-correcting salve for a self-governing people. The UK has made some very serious policy mistakes in immigration, labor unions, energy, education, Brexit…and now speech freedoms. To threaten to take away the negative feedback loop provided by humor could precipitate a slide into a failed state, where violence is seen as the only way to prevail over errant leadership.
Brexit a police mistake? No, emphatically no! Brexit was the one brief, shining moment when the UK, through a vote of the people – who have more common sense than the leaders – made a wise policy decision. Why should the people of the UK be ruled by a cabal of globalist elite faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who get everything wrong, without exception? Since that one brief moment of lucidity, the UK has turned around and trod the path to hell, which is where it is now with its rape gangs that the authorities refuse to prosecute and its Nazi-like suppression of speech and even silent prayer.
Like Hitler, Stalin, Mao…Fascists/Communists clearly show who they are!
Why do people support the Globalists’ and Democrat actions to destroy western society?
Trying to think of any “liberal” speech that was deemed hate speech and arrests made. . . The fact that this is so one sided should make even the dimmest of society ask themselves “Hey what’s going on here?” But as usual, the ends justify the means.
reminder Germany VOTED for Hitler!
Reminder, United States VOTED for Trump !!
And thank god we did!
Independent Bob
That’s also what the Nazis said.
Unfortunately history tends to repeat itself.
Hitler would have handled 2 impeachments a lot different than Trump did!
With any sort of luck Trump will handle the end of his rule the same way that Hitler did.
@Anonymous
Yes. Twice. With a different party and administration in-between. Your point is . . . ?
“United States VOTED for Trump !!”
Yes! Keep saying it! WE DID IT!
it took ONE brave man to destroy the Collectivist party.
That’s gotta hurt.
Praise the Lord!
Guyventner – Hitler’s party only obtained minority support in the 1932 election when he was defeated at the polls by Hindenburg. Hindenburg later appointed Hitler as Chancellor under political pressure. So unlike Trump, Hitler didn’t become the national leader through a vote of the people.
The bit of Linehan’s tweet that was used to justify the arrest was the final suggestion that trans males who intruded into a female lavatory (bearing in mind our Supreme Court has done what your legal system has failed to do and ruled that sex is as at birth, not whatever gender an individual subsequently tries to claim) should be “punched in the balls.” Now, that is an apparent incitement to violence, which has never enjoyed protection under British law, and never will. The issue is whether the police exercised appropriate judgement and discretion when deciding to make an arrest for a rather hypothetical comment, and the manner in which they conducted themselves in so doing. That is why every political party except the hard left Greens are piling on; there may be a theoretical offence, but was this really the best use of plod’s time? The comparable US incident would be Pirro’s ridiculous overcharging of the drunk who threw a sandwich at a police officer, which of course ended up with her looking an utter fool.
I can picture a girl who would be a high school student in Minnesota asking her boyfriend to go into the men’s bathroom and get her a tampon.
Now that is sadly funny!
*. While I appreciate your free speech the idea you suggest is vulgar.
Listen to how language has changed. Medicine speaks of HERD immunity and not the HUMAN condition of MASS immunity. Dumbing down continues.
Transgender is a DISORDER and medical. It’s origin can be mental or physical or both. Physicians didn’t make a guess.
Whose balls were punched? How can one be guilty of incitement of violence if no violence was incited?
Yes indeed.
Likewise how can anyone be guilty of incitement to kill Trump if no such attempt was made.
Nathalie Jones was charged with making social media threats to disembowel Trump.
Jeanine “BoxWine Pirro, charged her with “threatening to take the life of, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, and transmitting in interstate commerce communications containing threats to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.”
Thankfully sanity prevailed and the grand jury refused to indict.
You quite happily denounce the Brits for indicting someone who made online threats, while simultaneously being outraged that a grand jury dismissed the same charges here in the US.
Why is the charge against Linehan a violation of his “free speech” rights, but when Jones makes similar threats she apparently has no free speech rights to do so.
We have the First Amendment, the UK doesn’t. It would clearly violate the First Amendment to impose criminal punishment on someone for making a joke at the expense of a favored political constituency, as the UK is doing. If you think it would also violate the First Amendment to impose criminal punishment on someone for threatening to assassinate the President of the United States (see 18 U.S.C. Section 871), which seems to be your position, then why has that statute not already been declared unconstitutional? It was used to convict Troy Kelly for threatening President Biden as well as Logan Spencer and Brian Dean Miller for threatening President Obama. Are you saying those convictions violated the First Amendment? If so, then what is your argument for why the First Amendment protects true threats against the President of the United States?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States
omfk
We all know that you only imagine yourself to be an attorney in your own little fantasy world.
Let me clarify the actual facts for you
Kelley, Spencer and Miller all pleaded guilty to the charges of threatening the President.
They also freely admitted that they had an INTENT to carry out the threats.
It is illegal to threaten the life of the President. If the government brings such charges then they have the burden of proving INTENT, as they do with many other crimes.
In fact all 3 of these criminals freely admitted that they had an INTENT to carry out the threats.
Case closed as they say.
What about Nathalie Jones? She pleaded not guilty and denied an INTENT to carry out the threat to kill Trump.
Her attorney pointed out that the government presented no evidence whatsoever of actual INTENT and that her social media posts were “hyperbolic statements protected by the First Amendment”.
The grand jury apparently agreed.
The grand jury apparently found that Jeanine “BoxWine” Pirro was unable to present any credible evidence of INTENT.
Case dismissed as they say.
Now that you have learned some actual law you can go back into your little fantasy world.
You say I only pretend to be a lawyer and yet you never back up your own legal fantasies with evidence. But you make all these assertions about the law, saying it makes the speaker’s actual “intent” central to a threat prosecution, and you don’t provide a link. I gave you a link to 18 USC 871. Did you read that statute? Your comment suggests you did not read it.
Here, since you’re too lazy to follow a link, I’ll quote the statute below. Please show me where in the statute is says anything about intent? Please cite a judicial decision that has interpreted the statute to make the speaker’s subjective intent central to criminal liability. I’ll wait. If you can’t do that, then when you tell other people they are full of s–t you should be looking in the mirror.
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
omfk
For a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 871, which prohibits threats against the President, it is necessary to prove the defendant acted knowingly and willfully.
The government also has the burden of establishing that the defendant made a “true threat”.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the “true threat” standard as follows:
The First Amendment protects some types of inflammatory or exaggerated speech. To secure a conviction under § 871, the government must prove that the defendant made a “true threat,” which is not just political hyperbole, idle talk, or a joke, which would be protected by the First Amendment.
(Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Kelley, Spencer and Miller all pleaded guilty to the charges of threatening the President.
They also freely admitted that they had an intent to carry out the threat.
Thus the defendants themselves established that the charges met the “true threat” standard.
Nathalie Jones pleaded not guilty and denied an intent to carry out the threat to kill Trump.
Her attorney pointed out that the government presented no evidence whatsoever of actual intent and that her social media posts were “hyperbolic statements protected by the First Amendment” and thus did not meet the “true threat”standard.
The grand jury agreed that the government failed to meet the “true threat” standard and refused to indict.
Now you can go back to your fantasy world.
You still didn’t answer my question or provide a link to support your thesis that Section 871 makes the speaker’s intent a prerequisite to criminal liability. And you can’t because it doesn’t. You are dead wrong on that.
As for the “true threat” doctrine, I’m very familiar with it. It too does not depend on the speaker’s intent. It depends on whether in the circumstances reasonable listeners would have interpreted the threat to embody a genuine threat versus a joke or satire. You rely on factors such as: a DC grand jury not indicting, an attorney’s statement about his client’s intentions, and a guilty plea. Those things have no bearing on the legal requirements embedded in Section 871 in terms of the elements of the offense – which, again, do not include the speaker’s intent. We have seen lately that DC grand juries simply will not indict people charged with violence against Trump or his policies, people often plead guilty as part of a plea bargain to avoid other consequences, and a lawyer’s statements about his client do not define the elements of the offense.
So . . . everything you are depending on means nothing in terms of what the law actually requires for liability. I quoted the very words of the statute, which you again ignored. I asked you for a judicial decision interpreting Section 871 as requiring intent as a prerequisite to liability, you did not supply one. Do you think the words of the statute are not relevant? Is that why you scrupulously avoid discussing them?
You’ve had many chances now to support your understanding of the law, and have failed each time. There is only one conclusion: you, sir, are the one living in a fantasy world.
Now that I have given you the correct meaning of the true threat doctrine, you tell me whether comments made by Ms. Jones, as described below, were just jokes or satire.
“In an August 6 post directed at the FBI, Nath.Jones wrote that ‘I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present,'” the office said. In an interview with Secret Service last Friday, Jones allegedly said if she had the opportunity she would take Trump’s life and would kill him at “the compound,” and suggested she would use a “bladed object,” which she said was the weapon she would use to “carry out her mission of killing” the president, and that she wanted to “avenge all the lives lost during the Covid-19 pandemic,” which she atrributed to President Trump’s administration and its position on vaccinations.
Those are dad-gum funny jokes and satire, right? No way a reasonable listener would think she was serious, right? She was obviously joking, right?
Or can you just be honest for once in your life and admit that the grand jury engaged in jury nullification, that you don’t know the first thing about the statute, that you don’t really understand the true-threat doctrine, and that you don’t really know anything about criminal law?
What Turley once again omits is the near universal condemnation from British politicians, including the Government, of what happened. And that last comment, that, “it was thrill, even fun, for those who use these laws,” has no evidential basis whatsoever. The Met Police, from the Commissioner down to the individual officers involved, have been left swinging in the wind by the Government’s refusal to endorse their actions.
Professor, stick to US legal matters, do not continually make a fool of yourself on British matters which you do not understand, and never will. Funny how you have nothing to offer on the legality of Trump’s use of the National Guard, or inventing a category of “narco-terrorist” to kill alleged drug smugglers, when clear means existed to arrest them.
“omits is the near universal condemnation from British politicians,..” And? So what?
This is a person who has a deep seated hate for itself and those who have different opinions. And a desperate need to be heard that it resorts to childish prose.
What a waste of life this anon is. There’s a special hell for this anon.
The cartels have militarized and infiltrated government. The Philippines made the mistake of listening to liberals who insisted on battling their cartels with rule-of-law restraints on the state. This went on until entire islands were controlled by organized crime gangs. Mexico is in deep trouble with widespread cartel extortion overtaking once crime-free tourist enclaves like Cancun (the Mayan Riviera). Governments in Venezuela and Ecuador are already captured by organized crime.
As President Bukele in El Salvador has demonstrated, a firm hand must be applied, including extra-judicial (military) action. The situation is reversible, but liberals must admit that when criminal organizations themselves militarize in order to go up against state power (in order to ascend to state takeover), they must be trounced with military state power. At some point, normal law enforcement is too weak a response.
Trump’s admiration for Bukele is, along with his failure to be robust with Putin, one of the greatest stains on his Presidency. Bukele is as wicked as Noriega or Maduro. The CICOT deportations, and Noem parading herself there, will be remembered long after they are both dead and buried, and not with approbation. Give your heads a wobble!
In sending military to DC, Trump uses strategy that led to El Salvador’s drastic drop in murders
“In 2015, El Salvador recorded 6,656 homicides. But after the mass arrests, the numbers plummeted. Seven months into this year, there had been about 40 murders.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/tough-crime-el-salvador-style
When I queried Grok on the so-called “condemnation” by British politicians: Prime Minister Keir Starmer has not directly condemned the police regarding the arrest of comedian Graham Linehan. However, he has emphasized that police should prioritize serious crimes over social media posts. According to multiple sources, including The Independent and LBC, Starmer’s official spokesman stated that the arrest was an “operational matter for the police,” but reiterated that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have been clear about their priorities for policing, which include tackling anti-social behavior, shoplifting, street crime, and serious violent crimes like knife crime and violence against women, rather than focusing on social media posts.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting echoed this sentiment, suggesting that police should focus on “policing streets, not tweets,” and indicated that laws placing expectations on police to monitor online speech may need review, as they dilute public priorities.
While Starmer has not explicitly condemned the police, his comments and those of his government suggest a preference for redirecting police efforts away from cases like Linehan’s, which involved his arrest at Heathrow Airport on September 1, 2025, over three social media posts on X suspected of inciting violence. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, also acknowledged the controversy, stating that officers are in an “impossible position” enforcing existing laws and should not be policing “toxic culture wars debates.”
“near universal condemnation from British politicians, including the Government”
Who’s in charge over there then, hmmm?
I’m trying to keep up with your takes on stuff.
maybe you could list all the things you disagree with going on this side of the planet for clarity
or even just paste from your manifesto. Thanks.
The term ‘narco-terrorism’ & ‘narco-terrorist’ have been around since 1987.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/narco-terrorism
So how could Trump invented such a term if such a term already existed? 😊
Drop the “great” from the name England chose to use while ruling 2 other countries! “Great” Britain isn’t.
Moron. Great Britain is first and foremost a geographic term. Wales was conquered, ditto Ireland, and Scotland conducted its financial affairs with such Trumpian aplomb (mainly through misbegotten financial investments in the Americas) that it begged England to be allowed to enter into an Act of Union to save it from bankruptcy. When we granted Ireland independence, the political name became the United Kingdom of Great Britain (ie the unified big island of the British Isles) and Northern Ireland. Because Ireland or any bits of it was not geographically part of Great Britain, but a separate entity within the British Isles.
name a place not conquered?
Canada. At least, not by you, thanks to your hapless efforts in 1812. North Vietnam, at least not by you, despite the massive military power you had in the sixties and seventies.
Moron? How true. And your fellow man.
“Not-great britain” “Puny britain”
Untouched by the yearn for liberty and feeling safe (and quiet) in their Monarch’s bosom.
and still sticking with the whole “this guy was appointed by GOD ya’know so ya better do as he says!” schtick