Britain's police are restricting speech in worrying ways

Role of Police vs Lawmakers

• Several commenters argue the core problem is vague or overbroad laws written by politicians, not rogue police; officers are “obligated to enforce what’s on the books.”
• Others counter that muddled laws merely give police wide discretion, and they should still be held accountable for how they use that discretion.

Discretion, Selective Enforcement, and “Lose–Lose” Policing

• Repeated point: it’s easier and safer to chase online “offensive communications” than burglaries or violent crime; convictions are easier with text evidence.
• Some say police are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t”: criticized for both overreach (e.g. speech prosecutions, protesters, prayer near clinics) and underreach (failing to act on other speech or protests).
• Concern that laws become tools to selectively target disfavored groups rather than being applied consistently.

Who Is Targeted? Right, Left, and Beyond

• The article is criticized for focusing almost entirely on right‑wing examples, despite similar tactics being used against Quakers, disability advocates, anti‑hunting activists, anti‑COVID‑policy protesters, and pro‑Palestine protesters.
• Some see this as narrative‑shaping rather than an honest survey of how broadly these powers are used.

UK vs US Free Speech Standards

• Many contrast Britain’s approach with the US First Amendment and the “imminent lawless action” standard.
• Some argue the US model tolerates too much conspiracy and extremism; others say it better protects against state overreach and “thought crime.”
• Debate over when incitement online (e.g. calls to burn hotels or mosques during real riots) crosses the line from venting to criminal threat.

Laws, Institutions, and Authoritarian Drift

• Focus on the Communications Act, public order powers, PSPOs around abortion clinics, libel law, and the Online Safety Act as key mechanisms expanding speech policing.
• Strong thread on structural issues: powerful, hard‑to‑reform civil service and security services, long‑lasting “temporary” security powers (Troubles, GWOT), weak constitutional free‑speech guarantees.
• Broader anxiety that Western “democracies” are sliding toward illiberal or oligarchic systems where voters have little real control, and speech restrictions are a symptom.