UK Man Arrested For ‘Malicious Communications’
Do you value your rights? If you do, please thank Sam Adams and others like him who rebelled against the reigning British Government, at the risk of treason, to preserve what they believed were our human rights. Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys the same rights we do, as the United Kingdom just exemplified, where police just arrested a man for posting an allegedly offensive tweet.
As shown in a viral video, Hampshire officers on Thursday confronted and arrested a UK man. One of the officers says, “Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. And that is why you’re being arrested.”
The post in question was reportedly an image mocking the many evolutions of the LGBT/transgender pride flag by reshaping it into a swastika.
According to the BBC, the man was arrested for “malicious communications,” while another man who recorded the incident was arrested for supposedly “obstructing an arrest.”
The Hampshire government attempts to explain what “malicious communication” is. The graphic notes that malicious communication “relates to the sending of indecent, offensive or threatening letters, electronic communication or articles with the intent to cause the recipient distress or anxiety” and that it “is a criminal offense, which could result in prosecution and a criminal record.”
Fortunately, Hampshire Police & Crime Commissioner Donna Jones has condemned her own officers' actions.
“I am concerned about both the proportionality and necessity of the police’s response to this incident,” she said. “When incidents on social media receive . . . two visits from police officers but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response, something is wrong.”
Hopefully, the man in question will not ultimately face any criminal consequences given the intense public scrutiny of the police’s actions in this case. But the fact that this arrest even occurred in the first place reminds us why the First Amendment is so important.
The UK laws about “malicious communication” are clear infringements on free speech that would never for a moment stand in a country with free speech protections, like the United States where the First Amendment provides broad speech protections from government. The UK’s laws set the stage for this arrest and certainly have a chilling effect on free expression.
After all, who knows what someone else might find offensive or what might make someone else anxious?
As John Locke explained, individuals have rights to their persons and property, including the right to use one’s person and property for communication. But, nobody has a right to any particular emotional state. To enforce such a false “right” for some means violating the true rights of others: including the freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Last year was a tough year for many people at our office regarding loved ones passing. Thankfully, we have a very close office and we try our best to be there for each other. As such, I went to visit a team member who lost a parent. While visiting, her young daughter - I would say probably about 6 years old - came over to talk with me. She is such an awesome girl and just like her mama, not afraid to say what is on her mind. She proceeded to tell me that I am full of Bullshit - not BS - bullshit. Probably because I am an attorney I informed her, but her mom was quick to tell her not to talk like that. In response, the young lady said, "But that is what you say about him."
You should have seen mom and dad - it was so perfect (and kind of true). I loved it and I respect her for just putting it out there. Do you respect free speech when you don't agree with it? Do you civilly accept free speech when it is directed at you - or do you move to shut it down because it "offends" you? Do you believe that your singular perspective is more valuable than another's?
It doesn’t really matter whether you think the UK man’s post was just poking fun or was hateful and offensive. We should all support the right to speak freely, and even say things that others find hateful or distressing without being persecuted or arrested by the government.
If we were to start limiting speech based on another's reaction, or even worse the perspective of the intent of the speech, then we will always be shutting down individual's rights. Even saying nothing can be considered offensive to some individuals. Such broad and subjective criteria can be used to shut down any unpopular idea and stifle any debate, no matter how crucial.
Instead of shutting down those that we disagree with, how about we encourage them to speak and we listen? By shutting your mouth and opening your ears, you will solve more problems than you ever could by yelling at someone that they are wrong, or they hurt your feelings. Your attorney must know this as well. A good attorney will listen to your needs and work to solve them to your benefit. Please allow Winslow Law to listen to your needs and assist you to solve those legal concerns at 843-357-9301.
May God Bless You, Your Business, and this Country,
Tom Winslow