[xasop]

I don't think how we behaved as a nation a century ago is that relevant to how we behave today.

I'm not arguing that it is. This is a response to your claim that:

Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government

[AATW]

I don't think how we behaved as a nation a century ago is that relevant to how we behave today.

I'm not arguing that it is. This is a response to your claim that:

Neither the US or UK has ever had a particularly oppressive government

Well fair enough then. I would agree we have historically been fairly oppressive to other countries which we ruled - as we've established many have had to go to war or rebel to get rid of us. But in general the government has let us get on with our lives without undue interference. I'm always interested that people with a mindset say "you can't say anything these days..." while basically saying what they like.

[xasop]

I would agree we have historically been fairly oppressive to other countries which we ruled - as we've established many have had to go to war or rebel to get rid of us. But in general the government has let us get on with our lives without undue interference.

There is no difference between those two things in the case of Ireland. The Irish were part of "us" because Ireland was a part of the UK. You cannot simultaneously agree to the Irish having been oppressed and say that the citizens of the UK were never oppressed.

[honk]

I think the "imminent" qualification is very important. It's the difference between yelling "Jump!" at a would-be suicide jumper and talking about how you feel that anyone who's ever had a suicidal impulse ought to go through with it, or the difference between yelling "They're going to kill you! Run, fight back, don't let them take you!" at someone whom the police are arresting and talking about how you feel that as a general principle, nobody should ever peacefully submit to being arrested - or, to return to the Tyler Kay case, the difference between leading an angry anti-immigrant protest to a hotel known for housing migrants and refugees and bellowing, "There it is, let's burn it down!" and expressing your anti-immigration opinion and saying you'd like to see the hotels that house immigrants be burned down.

I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, nor do I have any interest in finding out. It sounds like you might be agreeing with me, but its obscured by layers upon layers of whataboutism.

I don't think there's anything complicated or difficult to understand about this concept. Encouraging other people to commit a crime in America is only illegal when the potential crime is both imminent and likely to happen, in recognition of the fact that social pressure can put undue influence on someone in a heated moment. In Britain, however, people are arrested and prosecuted simply for saying things that might influence other people to commit a crime at some point in the future, or, even worse, for simply being offensive. Even if I accept that the Sutton case was because that guy was rioting and not simply for what he said, the OP leaves no doubt that people are being punished or threatened with being punished simply for expressing opinions online that might influence other people to go out and commit crimes at some point in the future.

You were the one who raised the point of all the other types of regulated speech and negatively compared them to how they're handled in other countries. If you don't want to follow through on your own argument...okay? Kind of weird, but it's your call. And if your whole point was just to say that America does technically have laws regarding speech and therefore they shouldn't criticize the laws that other countries, then I'll just say the same thing that I did in my last post - it's beyond pedantic. Nobody in America thinks that there are literally no laws whatsoever that govern speech. What's being criticized are the specific laws governing speech in Britain and other countries, not the fact that they have laws to begin with. Of course they have laws regulating speech. Every country has laws regulating speech. Pointing this obvious fact out isn't a brilliant rebuttal.

Did you miss
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution

This is a story about a guy being prosecuted for making threats. As it happens, he was entirely innocent, and the police were overzealous at best and corrupt at worst, but there's nothing inherently wrong with prosecuting someone for making threats. Making threats should absolutely be illegal. The problem in this case lies with the police, not with the law.

Bullshit. It's not just a shitty opinion, it's dangerous incitement in the context of stabbings in which a 17 year old stabbed a bunch of kids, killing 2, following which a load of disinformation was spread online that the 17 year old was a refugee and/or a Muslim. Neither are true. That sparked a load of riots in which hotels housing refugees were sent on fire and people's lives were endangered. I have no issue with people involved in that either directly or indirectly being punished. To characterise those tweets as "just expressing an opinion" is a massive stretch.

Those people chose to riot. Nobody made them do it. Think about it this way - if a dumb racist guy saying dumb racist shit online is enough to spark these riots and hotel-burnings, then you should be a lot less concerned about the people who spread these opinions and a lot more concerned about the people who obviously share these opinions and are willing to act on them. I guarantee you that not a single one of these people rioting were anything other than deeply racist themselves, and more likely than not, most of them were probably regular criminal offenders too. Blaming riots on people expressing anti-immigration opinions as if they're somehow responsible for what all these other people did, as if all these rioters were fine upstanding citizens until racist shitposters corrupted them, is just avoiding the real problem, and doing so in a way that's fundamentally ugly for being so anti-free expression.

The issue I have in this thread is some people trying to paint the US as a shining beacon of liberty and freedom and the UK as as cesspit of oppression and control.

That is a very silly thing to say, yes. It's exactly because all governments are fallible organizations full of fallible people that I believe the right to free expression is so important. A government doesn't have to be marching stormtroopers down the street to be untrustworthy. The points that xasop raised about colonialism certainly aren't wrong, but we don't even need to go that far back to find good examples. Just twenty years ago, the U.S. government infamously lied about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq and launched a catastrophic, destructive war for the purposes of their own political goals and enriching their cronies in the oil business. As part of their efforts, they aggressively smeared and tried to discredit anyone who questioned the facts or didn't enthusiastically support the war, both before and after the invasion. If there was a way to arrest and prosecute people for expressing their opinions, they absolutely would have done it, and figured out a way to spin their charges as somehow being "hate speech" or "incitement" after the fact. It's precisely because a government won't always have good, trustworthy people in positions of power that we need strong restrictions on what they can or can't do. To me, free expression is one of those things that should always be protected. The ability to restrict it is simply too powerful a tool for any government to be trusted with.

[Pete Svarrior]

In Britain, however, people are arrested and prosecuted simply for saying things that might influence other people to commit a crime at some point in the future, or, even worse, for simply being offensive.

This literally doesn't happen outside of the American far right's fantasies, and you're the last person I'd expect to have difficulty realising this.

Even if I accept that the Sutton case was because that guy was rioting and not simply for what he said, the OP leaves no doubt that people are being punished or threatened with being punished simply for expressing opinions online that might influence other people to go out and commit crimes at some point in the future.

I'm sorry to hear you fell for it. I'm not really going to invest the energy in convincing you of something so obvious. The OP says "if you commit crimes, we'll use extradition treaties to extradite you where appropriate". It refers to people who ran away abroad after committing crimes on British soil, and who continue to commit crimes - it's an extremely milquetoast statement, and perhaps it confuses you that it's a statement at all. I encourage you to take a deep breath and examine where you got your reading of the situation from - after all, you already pointed out it makes zero sense.

There may be a cultural difference here. Americans like to (but only sometimes) be very prescritpive in their wording, so they would say something like "we will prosecute to the FULLEST!1!!! extent of the law". Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.

You were the one who raised the point of all the other types of regulated speech and negatively compared them to how they're handled in other countries.

Negatively? Not at all. America's free speech laws are roughly sensible, as I've said multiple times already. Though it is telling that you perceived these statements as negative...

They're largely similar to those of Europe, with some minor pros and cons, but that's not really a negative, that's just normality. For example, you guys seem to value freedom of the press much less than Europe does, but this is just a cultural difference - you like your propaganda mills strong, but leave individuals to repeat whichever propaganda outlet they prefer. We prefer our media free, but Germany won't let you fly NSDAP flags in your back yard, and England won't let you directly call on your followers to commit genocide or storm government buildings. Different solutions for different problems. Now, that does clash with your extremely funny mythos of "free speech", which doesn't occur in reality, but that's neither here nor there.

In fact, the press freedom aspect is very visible here. Y'all are losing your shit because a guy with no influence over anything at all published an opinion piece that you dislike in a leftie tabloid. The American mindset cannot comprehend that people will express themselves freely through this medium.

Blaming riots on people expressing anti-immigration opinions as if they're somehow responsible for what all these other people did, as if all these rioters were fine upstanding citizens until racist shitposters corrupted them, is just avoiding the real problem, and doing so in a way that's fundamentally ugly for being so anti-free expression.

I mean, okay, but that's not a thing that anyone is doing. I think your problem is that you're focusing very hard on trying to explain why something is a very bad thing, without stopping to wonder whether the bad thing has taken place in recent history.

What's being criticized are the specific laws governing speech in Britain and other countries

No, what you're criticising is Rushy's rather deliberate fantasy around free speech in Britain - something you should have been well prepared to spot and react to appropriately - except you're treating it as if it held any water. If that's the level of discussion you want, then making fun of America by blatantly exaggerating its restrictions on free speech is exactly par for the course. If you'd like a better discussion, up your standards first, and then we can have a chat about the realities of both countries. Until then - haha, you guys have to say the pledge of allegiance in school, what a silly restriction on free speech! Gosh, is America okay?

[Rushy]

Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.

It's amusing that Pete's argument requires we take his word for it, after all, Europeans are too enlightened to state details about things. Therefore, we must accept vague allusions to reality. Reminder: I asked Pete for a link to prove his point and he stopped responding to me entirely. This isn't unusual for Pete, but it is still disappointing.

You see, honk, you incorrectly took a European's word at face value. You should have simply played mental gymnastics until they actually said something completely different. Europeans do this so often they think it's not abnormal to do so. It's also, coincidentally, why Europe keeps falling for memes like fascism and communism. They're uniquely, culturally prone to such things. You need to look no farther than modern day Hungary to be reminded of that.

[Pete Svarrior]

Reminder: I asked Pete for a link to prove his point and he stopped responding to me entirely.

You specifically asked for proof of what the law enforcement is doing without referencing law enforcement. Of course you didn't get a response - after all, you never troll.

It's also, coincidentally, why Europe keeps falling for memes like fascism and communism.

Careful, friend - your current options are Kamala and Trump.

[Rushy]

You specifically asked for proof of what the law enforcement is doing without referencing law enforcement. Of course you didn't get a response - after all, you never troll.

I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly. Otherwise this becomes:

"Hello officer, are you currently heckin' illegalin' right now?" 'no' "wow, have a good day!"

Careful, friend - your current options are Kamala and Trump.

Listen here, buddy.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly.

As much as I dislike cops, I'm going to hold on to my mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" - if the cops are demonstrably lying about what they're doing, then we need some evidence of that.

[Rushy]

I don't think it's a big ask for proof that the police are doing what they say they're doing without asking the police directly.

As much as I dislike cops, I'm going to hold on to my mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" - if the cops are demonstrably lying about what they're doing, then we need some evidence of that.

You mean like an article saying they arrested someone just for making rude gestures?

[Pete Svarrior]

You mean like an article saying they arrested someone just for making rude gestures?

But it doesn't say that, though. It lists a bunch of other issues, such as him being from Sutton, breaking out of the police cordon, and inciting disorder.

If we look beyond tabloids, we'll find that the man pleaded guilty to violent disorder: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/rioters-who-admitted-taking-part-london-unrest-are-sentenced

[honk]

I'm sorry to hear you fell for it. I'm not really going to invest the energy in convincing you of something so obvious. The OP says "if you commit crimes, we'll use extradition treaties to extradite you where appropriate". It refers to people who ran away abroad after committing crimes on British soil, and who continue to commit crimes - it's an extremely milquetoast statement, and perhaps it confuses you that it's a statement at all. I encourage you to take a deep breath and examine where you got your reading of the situation from - after all, you already pointed out it makes zero sense.

There may be a cultural difference here. Americans like to (but only sometimes) be very prescritpive in their wording, so they would say something like "we will prosecute to the FULLEST!1!!! extent of the law". Europeans tend to omit obvious statements like these, because they're obvious. We don't feel the need to caveat our statements with something like "we'll enforce the law unless it's illegal to do so", because we don't have a culture of cops breaking laws when it suits them.

I agree with you that Rowley wasn't threatening to extradite and prosecute citizens of other countries, and also that it was reasonable for him to not bother spelling out the obvious point that of course British laws don't apply to citizens of other countries. Nevertheless, he was very clearly talking about prosecuting people for the crime of "inciting" people to commit crimes by posting online. He was asked "What are you considering when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind a keyboard, maybe in another country?" and he responded with "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 publishing of material. All of these offenses are in play in people on provoking hatred and violence on the streets. And we'll come after those individuals..." I'm not misunderstanding him or taking him out of context. He's talking about prosecuting people for expressing opinions online or calling for actions that rile up other people or encourage them to commit crimes. There are at least three people who have been punished for this already. And I think it's been pretty well-documented that Britain does have a long history of prosecuting people for hate speech or simply saying offensive things online. I wish I could find more timely examples, but there's a guy who dressed his dog up as a Nazi, and there's a guy who ranted about Muslims online. According to this article, there was even a huge anti-hate speech crackdown some years ago, with thousands of people being arrested over the course of a year.

Negatively? Not at all. America's free speech laws are roughly sensible, as I've said multiple times already. Though it is telling that you perceived these statements as negative...

There did appear to be a certain negative connotation to phrasing like "it does much worse than most of Europe," "unlike civilized countries," "the meme that is your defamation laws," and "the US's poor standing in press freedom benchmarks," at least in my view. But that's just a quibble. More importantly, American schoolchildren are not required to say the pledge of allegiance. They only have to stand during it. That changes everything.

[Rushy]

But it doesn't say that, though. It lists a bunch of other issues, such as him being from Sutton, breaking out of the police cordon, and inciting disorder.

For some definition of "inciting disorder".

If we look beyond tabloids, we'll find that the man pleaded guilty to violent disorder: https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-south/news/rioters-who-admitted-taking-part-london-unrest-are-sentenced

Well, I can't compete with that. It's impossible to plead guilty to something you didn't do. Case closed.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nevertheless, he was very clearly talking about prosecuting people for the crime of "inciting" people to commit crimes by posting online.

Right - and that's illegal in the USA, so collaborating with US law enforcement shouldn't surprise you.

He's talking about prosecuting people for expressing opinions online or calling for actions that rile up other people or encourage them to commit crimes.

I don't understand your point. Like I said, if people committed crimes in the UK, then fucked off and carried on committing crimes in other countries, typically those two countries will work together to track the individual down and have them face the consequences. I'm not sure why you're saying this all serious-like: No, I'm not misreading this, I'm not taking it out of context, law enforcement really do be enforcing laws. Chilling stuff.

There are at least three people who have been punished for this already.

Right. But that's identical to the USA. I don't understand how you're only now discovering that inciting violence is not acceptable in the West.

Some pertinent quotes from your first example:

Jordan Parlour, 28, was jailed for 20 months after pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred with Facebook posts in which he advocated an attack on a hotel in Leeds as part of the violent public disorder that swept England last week.

In Northampton, Tyler Kay, 26, was given three years and two months in prison for posts on X that called for mass deportation and for people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.

For what it's worth, I'd strongly suggest not posting "Dagnabbit, those there immigrant hotels, we should burn these sonovaguns down! Come join me on <date> at <time>! Load my guns and horn my swaggle, we're goin' a' killin' tonight!" It's not gonna go well for you.

Also, out of curiosity - do you know who Wayne O’Rourke is, or did you just bring him up because you thought the short article supported your position?

I wish I could find more timely examples, but there's a guy who dressed his dog up as a Nazi

Once again, I'm assuming you have no idea who "Count Dankula" is, and outside of "haha wow silly Britain arrested a guy for a Nazi dog!!!!!" you have no awareness of his long history with law enforcement?

The lengths you've been going to defend actual neo-Nazis here are impressive. I know this is out of extreme incompetence and not malice, but I'm not sure I'll be able to take you seriously the next time you claim to not be racist, or to support anti-racist movements.

and there's a guy who ranted about Muslims online.

I'm not sure how you can see a man who posted photos of himself holding a gun and threatened to kill people based on their religion and decide that it was "ranting about Muslims". It really surprises me that you see no difference between making credible threats on people's lives and "ranting". Then again, I understand you've got a mythology to defend here.

According to this article, there was even a huge anti-hate speech crackdown some years ago, with thousands of people being arrested over the course of a year.

Have you read that article? Did you follow up on what happened after it was published? It's talking about law enforcement overstepping its boundaries, and it has since led to significant adjustments. Like, yea, things went badly eight years ago when the government was trying to respond to a rise in violence. Lessons were learned, changes were implemented, and now things are going less badly. This is a good thing - it shows that our system works, and self-corrects when needed. I think y'all could learn from that, and it's not the big "gotcha" you were looking for.

There did appear to be a certain negative connotation

Nah, c'mon, both sides here are doing a bit. Just as Rushy and Roundy are grossly exaggerating for comedic effect, so am I. Cue one of them pointing out that they're not exaggerating at all, and me confirming that America is literally North Korea in turn.

More importantly, American schoolchildren are not required to say the pledge of allegiance. They only have to stand during it. That changes everything.

I stand (🥁) corrected.

[honk]

Right - and that's illegal in the USA

...

Right. But that's identical to the USA. I don't understand how you're only now discovering that inciting violence is not acceptable in the West.

Like I told you, incitement has to be in regard to imminent illegal action to be against the law in America. As in, it needs to be in the heat of the moment, right then and there. Posting on social media, "People should commit this crime," and someone else reading the post and thinking to themselves, "Hmm, this person makes a good case. I think I will go commit that crime!" would not be illegal in America, while it evidently is in Britain.

Some pertinent quotes from your first example:

Jordan Parlour, 28, was jailed for 20 months after pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred with Facebook posts in which he advocated an attack on a hotel in Leeds as part of the violent public disorder that swept England last week.

In Northampton, Tyler Kay, 26, was given three years and two months in prison for posts on X that called for mass deportation and for people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.

For what it's worth, I'd strongly suggest not posting "Dagnabbit, those there immigrant hotels, we should burn these sonovaguns down! Come join me on <date> at <time>! Load my guns and horn my swaggle, we're goin' a' killin' tonight!" It's not gonna go well for you.

It would be entirely legal for me to call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down in America. If I said that I was going to do it, it would become a threat, which is not protected speech, and if I called for people to join me at a certain date and time, it would become planning an attack, which is also not protected speech. But none of these guys threatened to do these things themselves, much less planned an attack out, so that's not really relevant. All their charges came down to simply encouraging other people to commit crimes, which is protected speech in America outside of the imminent factor.

Also, out of curiosity - do you know who Wayne O’Rourke is, or did you just bring him up because you thought the short article supported your position?

I don't know who he is outside of what the article says, and I don't think it really matters. The point is that nobody in America could ever be prosecuted for "stirring up racial hatred" or "anti-Muslim rhetoric."

Once again, I'm assuming you have no idea who "Count Dankula" is, and outside of "haha wow silly Britain arrested a guy for a Nazi dog!!!!!" you have no awareness of his long history with law enforcement?

You're right again, but I also don't see why that matters. Free speech has to be for everyone, regardless of their criminal record or how shitty they are as people, to truly mean anything.

The lengths you've been going to defend actual neo-Nazis here are impressive. I know this is out of extreme incompetence and not malice, but I'm not sure I'll be able to take you seriously the next time you claim to not be racist, or to support anti-racist movements.

Oh, come on, do you really think this huhuhuh you must agree with him then! bullshit is going to work on me? Really? That's a Babby's First Free Speech Debate-tier fallacy if I've ever heard one, and it's beneath you.

I'm not sure how you can see a man who posted photos of himself holding a gun and threatened to kill people based on their religion and decide that it was "ranting about Muslims". It really surprises me that you see no difference between making credible threats on people's lives and "ranting". Then again, I understand you've got a mythology to defend here.

Was he actually making threats, though? Because he wasn't charged with making threats, and neither the prosecutor nor the judge described what he said as being a threat. The whole case seemed to revolve entirely around him saying "offensive" things and stirring up hatred. I think it would be a higher priority to take down an armed man who's threatening to go out and kill minorities (and prosecute the case as such) than it would be simply to take down a guy saying racist stuff online, even in Britain, and the fact that this didn't happen suggests that the authorities didn't view this as a threat at all. The gun can easily be explained as just a prop to make himself look tougher and more badass.

Have you read that article? Did you follow up on what happened after it was published? It's talking about law enforcement overstepping its boundaries, and it has since led to significant adjustments. Like, yea, things went badly eight years ago when the government was trying to respond to a rise in violence. Lessons were learned, changes were implemented, and now things are going less badly. This is a good thing - it shows that our system works, and self-corrects when needed. I think y'all could learn from that, and it's not the big "gotcha" you were looking for.

I was just Googling around for examples of Britain punishing people for speech that would be protected in America. I should have guessed that I'd land on some outdated results. I do still feel that governments policing the expression of opinions like this is both fundamentally wrong and far too much power for them to be trusted with, but I'm glad that improvements are being made.

[AATW]

It would be entirely legal for me to call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down in America.

Do you regard that as a good thing? I'm don't think I do - and particularly not in the recent context where some stabbings led to disinformation about it being "one of them immigrants" who did it which led to hotels hosting families of asylum seekers to be set on fire, endangering the people inside. People Tweeting stuff encouraging that sort of action directly contributes to people's lives being put in danger.

I think we all agree that freedom doesn't mean you can literally do anything you like and freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally say anything you like.
Both countries have limitations on these things. Are the UK's more oppressive than the US's? If you can "call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down" in the US then I guess so, but I don't think that we're the ones who have got that wrong.

I think in the era of the internet where people can quickly reach a large audience there has to be some adjustment in laws and I'm not saying we have got it entirely right. But people aren't being rounded up and sent to the salt mines in the UK simply for expressing opinions. So to answer the question in the OP yes, the UK is OK. And I think the US is too. Both countries have their issues but neither is an oppressive dystopia.

[Rushy]

Do you regard that as a good thing?

Alright, as an example, let's say instead of immigrants, I say "the homes of fascists should be burned down." Is that illegal to say in the UK? Would I go to jail for tweeting it?

Usually, when someone says a "call for hotels housing immigrants to be burned down" is bad, they end up believing that some other group should not receive similar protection. Think of every possible noun I could replace "immigrants" with. If there are some people you can aim speech towards, and some you cannot, then that is obviously not freedom of speech. That's speech for some, none for others.

People Tweeting stuff encouraging that sort of action directly contributes to people's lives being put in danger.

Do you have any evidence that tweeting a general call for violence actually results in violence? Are violent actions some kind of thought-virus that only occur if you read about them on popular social media platforms?

[Tom Bishop]

America's Freedom of Speech is really Freedom of Belief, and the freedom to state those beliefs. This is why US speech is only illegal if it constitutes part of a specific illegal action of intent. Once you start planning out the intricacies of a detailed murder plot, it stops becoming a belief.

Unlike the UK, I can have and state beliefs without government intervention. Yes, I think I should be able wish death upon you and suggest to people that they should burn your house down. In America you can believe as you wish and don't have to be nice to anyone.

[AATW]

Do you regard that as a good thing?

Alright, as an example, let's say instead of immigrants, I say "the homes of fascists should be burned down." Is that illegal to say in the UK? Would I go to jail for tweeting it?

Honestly, I'm not sure. My feeling is in general no-one would bother prosecuting even if it is technically illegal. But the context is important here - people's lives actually were being put in danger and the online disinformation and inflammatory Tweets were contributing to that.

Do you have any evidence that tweeting a general call for violence actually results in violence? Are violent actions some kind of thought-virus that only occur if you read about them on popular social media platforms?

Again, I think in general it probably doesn't result in violence and in general I don't think anyone would bother prosecuting someone for those sorts of Tweets. But the context of the unrest is key here. I do think the nature of social media changes the nature of free speech - when anyone has the ability to broadcast bile across the internet to a large audience I think there needs to be some thought about what people can use that for.

In some ways the UK isn't OK, but I'd suggest the same is true of the US. Both countries have their issues. But the UK isn't the dystopian nightmare some people are trying to claim.

[Rushy]

people's lives actually were being put in danger and the online disinformation and inflammatory Tweets were contributing to that

Were they and was it? If I tweeted "the homes of immigrants should be burned down" and then it didn't happen, am I still breaking English law? It feels to me that this man is being held responsible because he agreed with someone's criminal actions, rather than actually performing a violent crime himself.

The UK has a long history of doing that, merely making an "offensive comment" about an incident often results in arrest: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-arrested-as-police-investigate-claims-of-offensive-twitter-message-about-glasgow-bin-lorry-crash-9942347.html

But the context of the unrest is key here. I do think the nature of social media changes the nature of free speech - when anyone has the ability to broadcast bile across the internet to a large audience I think there needs to be some thought about what people can use that for.

This makes it sound like you only think free speech applies when you're not speaking to anyone. It's like telling someone that they're free to travel anywhere they like in the country, as long as they don't travel more than 5 meters from their front door.

In some ways the UK isn't OK, but I'd suggest the same is true of the US. Both countries have their issues. But the UK isn't the dystopian nightmare some people are trying to claim.

I think routinely creating news articles that are something to the tune of "local police arrest man for making rude comments about the local police" sounds pretty dystopian to me. You're not living in 1984 just yet, but you're not in a shining beacon of modern governance, either.