While I have major problems with how free speech is handled in the UK, saying that people would go to prison over expressing their dislike of immigration is ludicrous. The entire media and political discourse right now is a competition for who dislikes immigration harder. Go to r/ukpolitics to see people complaining about immigration on a daily basis, and that used to be a liberal subreddit.
The things UK limits free speech on are others. For example, after its recent proscription, it’s become literally illegal to express any kind of sympathy or support for the organisation Palestine Action. Just last Saturday, over 500 people were arrested in London for participating in a protest about PA (and there’s also been cases of the police simply assuming any kind of support for Palestine equated support for PA).
I said you they can’t tell you why they oppose immigration, because many people’s true full reasons break the law. There are people in jail for naming non-government-approved reasons, and there are millions more who would agree with what they said to get there, if they could, without going to jail. They do not have freedom of speech on the issue. People on reddit have to carefully dance around how they describe their young girls’ rapists to avoid being “racist” or they will be banned instantly, and even face jail time, like [that woman who was jailed longer than the rapists she insulted](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1dt3bji/germany_woman_convicted_of_offending_migrant_gang/). Being so ignorant as to think they can freely speak their mind about this in 2025, and so confident in your ignorance to lecture others on the issue is, frankly, ludicrous. (I hope you don’t think that’s too combative of a word.)
And, OP, you have completely neglected to actually address the point that DirectedEvolution and I made about tons of people having circumstances where they CAN’T say things, despite multiple invitations. This completely undermines your post in many cases. How many cases? Well, you also missed my point that your statement about “almost everyone” / “most people” is clearly not well thought out, (Did you mean more than 4.1 billion people, having considered the political and cybersecurity climate of each country, and estimated the secret unspoken political opinions of all of the citizens? -- could you post the math behind this?), or were you just talking about sheltered Californians who hold zero verboten opinions? I took pains to avoid saying my opinion of your post too directly, since that would be too combative—deliberately keeping hidden from the world my secrets like “I think your post sounds like you live in a fantasy land”, but despite this, you pressed the “too combative” button on me anyway (which would be the ban button if you were a mod on reddit), on YOUR post that told me I should speak my mind and tell my truth.
that woman who was jailed longer than the rapists she insulted
I believe this is not an honest description of the case. Even the simple investigation of this, that I did by following the link, suggested that the woman was jailed for a weekend because of a previous theif, and for not attending and court hearing. All the defendants of the rape case got youth sentences of at least a year. I’m strongly downvoting your post. I hope you understand that this is not because I want to censor your political views, but because I want information on less wrong to not be misleading.
Congratulations on winning this one pedantic battle. Indeed that may have been a clickbait headline; I’m sure you can also find perfectly rational explanations for all TWELVE THOUSAND people jailed by the UK for wrongspeech PER YEAR. https://x.com/OlgaBazova/status/1968376382452379753
What I understood about this website is that it appears you prefer pedantically quibbling over one specific detail, instead of actually engaging in good faith the ACTUAL ARGUMENT I was making, which you didn’t do, and nor did anyone else, because I’m obviously in the right and it makes you all very uncomfortable so you all ran away.
I said you they can’t tell you why they oppose immigration, because many people’s true full reasons break the law. There are people in jail for naming non-government-approved reasons, and there are millions more who would agree with what they said to get there, if they could, without going to jail.
I have seen plenty of people making arguments that are absolutely to the effect of “this nationality/ethnicity/religion is in some way fundamentally incompatible with our understanding of civilized life” in all kinds of capacities. And others that are just thinly veiled versions of that, but I suspect that’s more about rhetorical motte and bailey than fear of literal legal repercussions.
Now you can argue whatever about e.g. the legality of using slurs, but you don’t need those to make a cogent racist argument. And plenty of such arguments are made daily. I’m not here to say they should be curtailed by speech laws (as I said, I’m actually much closer to the US’ First Amendment on what should be free speech), but it’s just playing the victim to pretend they are right now.
I do not think arresting people for speech crimes is right. But the answer was addressing specifically the notion that people could not express racist opinions in support of anti-immigration policies. And that is false, because expressing racist opinions in general does not seem to be criminalised—specific instances of doing so in roles in which you have a responsibility to the public, or in forms that constitute direct attacks or threats to specific individuals, or incitement to crime, etcetera, are.
As I said, the current political debate has virtually everyone arguing various points on the anti-immigration spectrum. Reform UK is an entire party that basically does nothing else.
While I have major problems with how free speech is handled in the UK, saying that people would go to prison over expressing their dislike of immigration is ludicrous. The entire media and political discourse right now is a competition for who dislikes immigration harder. Go to r/ukpolitics to see people complaining about immigration on a daily basis, and that used to be a liberal subreddit.
The things UK limits free speech on are others. For example, after its recent proscription, it’s become literally illegal to express any kind of sympathy or support for the organisation Palestine Action. Just last Saturday, over 500 people were arrested in London for participating in a protest about PA (and there’s also been cases of the police simply assuming any kind of support for Palestine equated support for PA).
I said you they can’t tell you why they oppose immigration, because many people’s true full reasons break the law. There are people in jail for naming non-government-approved reasons, and there are millions more who would agree with what they said to get there, if they could, without going to jail. They do not have freedom of speech on the issue. People on reddit have to carefully dance around how they describe their young girls’ rapists to avoid being “racist” or they will be banned instantly, and even face jail time, like [that woman who was jailed longer than the rapists she insulted](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1dt3bji/germany_woman_convicted_of_offending_migrant_gang/). Being so ignorant as to think they can freely speak their mind about this in 2025, and so confident in your ignorance to lecture others on the issue is, frankly, ludicrous. (I hope you don’t think that’s too combative of a word.)
And, OP, you have completely neglected to actually address the point that DirectedEvolution and I made about tons of people having circumstances where they CAN’T say things, despite multiple invitations. This completely undermines your post in many cases. How many cases?
Well, you also missed my point that your statement about “almost everyone” / “most people” is clearly not well thought out, (Did you mean more than 4.1 billion people, having considered the political and cybersecurity climate of each country, and estimated the secret unspoken political opinions of all of the citizens? -- could you post the math behind this?), or were you just talking about sheltered Californians who hold zero verboten opinions? I took pains to avoid saying my opinion of your post too directly, since that would be too combative—deliberately keeping hidden from the world my secrets like “I think your post sounds like you live in a fantasy land”, but despite this, you pressed the “too combative” button on me anyway (which would be the ban button if you were a mod on reddit), on YOUR post that told me I should speak my mind and tell my truth.
I believe this is not an honest description of the case. Even the simple investigation of this, that I did by following the link, suggested that the woman was jailed for a weekend because of a previous theif, and for not attending and court hearing. All the defendants of the rape case got youth sentences of at least a year.
I’m strongly downvoting your post. I hope you understand that this is not because I want to censor your political views, but because I want information on less wrong to not be misleading.
Congratulations on winning this one pedantic battle. Indeed that may have been a clickbait headline; I’m sure you can also find perfectly rational explanations for all TWELVE THOUSAND people jailed by the UK for wrongspeech PER YEAR. https://x.com/OlgaBazova/status/1968376382452379753
What I understood about this website is that it appears you prefer pedantically quibbling over one specific detail, instead of actually engaging in good faith the ACTUAL ARGUMENT I was making, which you didn’t do, and nor did anyone else, because I’m obviously in the right and it makes you all very uncomfortable so you all ran away.
I have seen plenty of people making arguments that are absolutely to the effect of “this nationality/ethnicity/religion is in some way fundamentally incompatible with our understanding of civilized life” in all kinds of capacities. And others that are just thinly veiled versions of that, but I suspect that’s more about rhetorical motte and bailey than fear of literal legal repercussions.
Now you can argue whatever about e.g. the legality of using slurs, but you don’t need those to make a cogent racist argument. And plenty of such arguments are made daily. I’m not here to say they should be curtailed by speech laws (as I said, I’m actually much closer to the US’ First Amendment on what should be free speech), but it’s just playing the victim to pretend they are right now.
Yeah, the TWELVE THOUSAND people the UK jails per year for wrongspeech
are all “playing the victim”.
That’s a very rational opinion.
https://x.com/OlgaBazova/status/1968376382452379753
I do not think arresting people for speech crimes is right. But the answer was addressing specifically the notion that people could not express racist opinions in support of anti-immigration policies. And that is false, because expressing racist opinions in general does not seem to be criminalised—specific instances of doing so in roles in which you have a responsibility to the public, or in forms that constitute direct attacks or threats to specific individuals, or incitement to crime, etcetera, are.
As I said, the current political debate has virtually everyone arguing various points on the anti-immigration spectrum. Reform UK is an entire party that basically does nothing else.