This boggles my mind, as a citizen of the USA who is used to having freedom of speech.
1) It's a tweet (of all things)..
2) Which incites nothing, and is an expression of opinion
And the guy gets hauled off to jail for 2 months because of it? This is the kind of behavior I'd expect from China, not an ostensibly first world nation!
*edit
I meant that literally, too. My mind simply ceases processing the circumstances under which a completely harmless tweet, in a place like Great Britain, can be grounds for legal action. I thought (mistakenly) that freedom of speech was recognized a bit more with the US's allies.
>Why incitement to racial hatred might be an issue in the UK?
I don't particularly understand the utility of such hate crime laws. For instance (and this is a bit out of scope of this article), how is:
"Let's go roam around and beat up some old people, clockwork orange style!"
any different from
"Let's go roam around and beat up some old black people, clockwork orange style!"
Both are conspiracy to commit a crime, both are likely to involve someone being injured to the point of near death, yet one is somehow worse and will lead to harsher sentencing because it's motivated by a different kind of hatred?
I am legitimately ignorant on this matter, could someone enlighten me?
Because the latter terrorizes the subgroup and gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crimes and less than crimes.
I live in an area that still has streets named after what they did to black people here (And I didn't realize it while I lived on that street what it was named for): Lynch
gives social proof making it "more acceptable" to target that group for both crimes and less than crimes.
I think you need data to support this assertion. Following the Skokie march was there more violence against Jews in Chicagoland?
As far as terrorizing the subgroup, I guess that depends. As a Jew I don't feel terrorized by Neo-nazi mailing lists, despite many of them being public. Moreover, even if I felt uncomfortable, I don't believe that my feeling overrides their right to express themselves in methods which don't constitute harassment.
You're talking about different things: He's talking about sentence enhancements on already violent crimes. You're talking about something about talking.
I find the British reaction to this tweet appaling, that they jailed the racist twit.
I however fully support the lengthening of sentences when a subgroup bias is determined to be likely.
Demonizing an outgroup to turn them into acceptable targets is exactly what this law is to prevent (and there is something to prevent: see the British National Party).
Do you have a source for your comments on civil law? As far as I know you can be sued for defamation and harassment, but neither of those are simply "hateful comments."
Also, "fighting words" is not simply inviting or inciting violence, it's "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
First, you did not use the term hate speech, you used the term "hateful comments," which do not legally have any connection.
Second, it seems that your own link reinforces exactly what I said. Inciting violence is not a crime in the United States. Incitement to riot may be, but this is not what you said. US law requires an immediate threat of violence in order to censure speech outside of defamation and obscenity.
Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to cause immediate breach of the peace.
You seem like you're reaching for something to argue about. "Yes, but you didn't use the proper legal term!" You also seem to be confusing the statement I made about civil suits vs what can be considered a crime. But, since two people have been willing to argue semantics in what is obviously not legal advice, I will say you must be right. I concede. Hateful comments could not get you sued civilly and inciting violence is not the same as advocating a breech of the peace. I guess.
Weren't a couple of British tourists hauled in and deported because they tweeted something inappropriate (according to TSA standards) a few weeks back?
There is a huge difference between being criminally prosecuted and being deported from the US as a foreign national. First, you don't have to commit a crime to be deported from the US -- you are a guest of the US government and may be deported at any time for a number of things, including anything which the government believes endangers public safety or national security. Not only that, the judicial proceedings are far more minimal. There is no crime and thus there is no criminal court.
This is a British citizen who was jailed for things that he posted on Twitter that did not incite violence. This does not happen in the United States. This is unconstitutional in the United States.
I wasn't comparing the severity of the reactions though. I was just pointing out that tweeting can land you in trouble. It is _not_ like sharing something naughty with a buddy over a pint. People just need to be more cautious of what they tweet or put on their face book wall.
Irrespective of severity, the level of overreaction in both incidents is comparable (IMO). Deporting tourists because they tweeted something harmless in hipster-speak is a bit naff.
I don't know how the laws are in the UK but damn, jail-time for racists comments? I'm 100% against prejudice but being sent to jail for saying something controversial seems like a bit much.
I don't know much about the government there or what people have rights to, any clarity would be much appreciated.
"Inciting racial hatred" is illegal here. I think that's quite a bit more specific than "saying something controversial".
I don't see that this is any different from the US First Amendment. It has exceptions too (eg. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre). "Inciting racial hatred" is an equivalent restriction. You may disagree on this law specifically, but I don't see how this affects anything fundamental like freedom of speech or anything like that.
I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards. Anyone can unfollow or even block his twitter, if you were even able to see it in the first place.
It is a freedom of speech issue because we should be allowed to write what we want on our personal social networks. I think it is absurd that mommy government can read your tweets (whats next? blogs, emails?) and give you jail time for the 'naughty' things you say.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete
I think what bothers me most is that other citizens reported him to the authorities for such, which means a percentage of the population agrees with speech being restricted so long as it restricts speech that is contrary to their dogma. Racism is a slippers slope too, I once witnesses a person being lambasted as a racist for calling an obvious blood gang member a thug. What people feel is the definition of racist varies widely and is very much perception based. I could easily see a law like that being used for witch hunts.
Judge or not a segment of the population is comfortable with the idea of the thought police and see them as the good guys, which should be a scary realization anytime it is witnessed. I would not want my life held in the balance by a judge who is going to make a subjective decision as to whether my speech was racist or not, in a society that accepts the policing of opinion, the judge already accepts as law that you are not entitled to your opinion, as such the deck is immediately stacked against you. Chances are in such a system judges will be affected by the same confirmation bias and group think as the rest of the population that thinks policing opinions, even when expressed in public is acceptable.
Making judgement calls is a normal part of the justice system. The powers it has will let you imagine numerous slippery slopes, so that isn’t an especially convincing argument.
Judgment call or not there have been witch hunts before and many where sanctioned by authority such as judges, we are talking about policing opinions, it is a slipper slope because the entire idea is rooted in control as such more and more control will be exerted. As I mentioned below even the judges will be influenced by the idea that criminalizing opinions is OK, which will make the ever slighter infraction more and more offensive.
To a certain extent I do feel that it crosse a line in that it makes speech itself criminal. All US speech laws (except for obscenity, but I don't agree that obscenity should be illegal) deal with an inseparable conjunction of speech and action/effect. "Fighting words" and "incitement to riot" both cause an immediate act of physical harm. Defamation requires a demonstration of harm and even then is very plaintiff-unfriendly.
In the US you can never be jailed just for speech, you must be jailed for speech in conjunction with physical harm or targeted harassment.
Yes in the US, the legal system has in the past been innocent until proven guilty, this thinking has at least in spirit extended to innocent of a crime, until action has taken place, this has changed slowly over the years the first to my knowledge was conspiracy to commit murder (in the 1870's IIRC), then others followed like general conspiracy and solicitation etc. But for the most part up until the recent past (1970's on) minor issues required action before you where guilty of a crime. Public speech related offenses are still viewed in the same light, saying we should tear this place down was not inciting a riot until it incited a riot at which point the act of saying it became a criminal offense. So criminalization was retroactively applied to the speech after it created criminal action.
Uhm, everyone can read tweets and blogs. They are public†.
I’m not sure how I think about this particular verdict (or whether making such comments in pubic should be illegal or not), but I do get very angry when people tell me that racism (or homophobia) is part of the game. No. No it's not. Being racist or homophobe is not being “rowdy”. It’s disgusting and no one should do it. Tradition or any other such nonsense is no valid defense.
Insulting fans and players of other clubs: Ok and expected.
The important thing isn't that everyone can read it, it's that everyone can not read it. I think that limiting the freedom of speech based purely on speech which one can easily opt out of is pretty reprehensible.
It’s still public speech, though, and not in any way personal. I was responding to a comment that the government reading twitter and blogs is akin to reading emails which is total bullshit.
I think what bothers me most is that the person he made fun of is a pro-athlete, part of the job is to take abuse from haters and rival fans. European soccer is notoriously rowdy, fans shout any and everything they can from the stands. It's part of the game.
I don't know if you're aware, but the user posted the comments shortly after Muamba suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game. He was in critical condition in hospital for days, and remains in serious condition now.
The scenes were broadcast live on television, and the incident has received extensive media coverage, leading to an outpouring of support from all members of society, including players and supporters of rival teams.
Personally, I don't think these facts should have any bearing on the legality of making such statements. As far as I'm concerned the relevant legislation is absurd — I don't believe offensive speech should be prohibited — and this was a knee-jerk sentencing, the severity of which seems almost entirely divorced from that of the crime, but you have to admit the comments were in pretty bad taste...
> I disagree, he was simply posting comments about a professional athlete on his own twitter account, it's not like he was yelling it on the street or putting up billboards.
I think you'll find, posting it on Twitter is the same as getting a tshirt with it written on and walking on the streets.
You seem to misunderstand US law. The only comparative speech which is banned in the US is "fighting words," which must meet the much more strenuous requirement of "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
If the words themselves do not cause an imminent and immediate threat of violence they are protected.
The metaphor of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was actually used in a Supreme Court ruling in Schenck v. United States, which justified putting a guy in prison for speaking (distributing leaflets) against the military draft. This decision was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. (Source: wikipedia)
Heh heh, that’s an old argument. So if my idea is, “Death to the Jews,” is that an incitement to action or an idea? We might disagree about this application of the law or that one, but the underlying principle is that certain types of ideas are considered to contribute towards certain types of crimes, or contribute towards an environment of fear, or contribute towards certain types of discrimination (which may not be criminal but is nevertheless illegal) and so forth..
Some people shrug and say, “Inciting a crime indirectly shouldn’t be a crime.” Others say, “Inciting a crime indirectly might be a crime, it depends on how indirectly, we need to talk about where to draw the line.” Others might say, “Inciting a crime ought to be a crime, but because there’s no unambiguous way to draw the line, we can’t make a law against it” and so on.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Eh, by that logic we should jail all Marxists due to their belief that a worldwide Communist revolution will require violence. Or anarchist newsletters for even discussing the violant takeover of the United States. Or any of many legitimate political viewpoints which incorporate violence as a possible solution to ideological problems. Even Malcom X would fall under this purview.
I don't think this is a very strong argument at all.
This is why the US law generally allows even inciting speech as long as it does not cause an immediate threat of violence.
>So there’s plenty to debate. But I don’t think anyone is saying that “hate speech” is just the expression of ideas. It’s the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour.
Not always. Hate speech is just that - if you're dumb enough to go and do something stupid based on what someone else says, that's your fault, not his.
"'Death to the Jews,' is that an incitement to action or an idea?"
Neither. It's an opinion, which should not only be allowed, but there should not even be a debate. Also, people seem to forget that, up until recently, it was okay to say that you wanted the death of an entire group of people. What wasn't okay was to single out a specific, identifiable person. Now, the former is becoming the norm, and you can see this actually covered in many online Terms of Service, which is, on its face, ridiculous in the extreme.
"But I don't think anyone is saying that 'hate speech' is just the expression of ideas. It's the expression of ideas that is held to incite criminal and/or illegal behaviour."
I AM SAYING THAT. I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you see the swastika on my arm, yet that same swastika can get me arrested in some places. Likewise, I am not liable for the thoughts which you have when you hear certain words that I might say. I don't control what goes on inside of your brain when certain auditory or visual impulses hit it.
I AM SERIOUSLY UPSET THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE LIKE YOU IN THIS WORLD. You actually believe that the mere conveyance of opinion should be banned because it might cause someone to do something. Think about what kind of world your children and their children will have if this kind of thinking becomes even more pervasive.
The true meaning of life is to continuously evolve towards some end, of which we are presently unaware. Said evolution requires unfettered communication to proceed apace, especially given that "evolution" is now becoming less rampantly biological and more self-directed, such as through technology, particularly nanotechnology. When said communication is censored, in any fashion, evolutionary progress is hampered. Thus, any act of censorship stands against life itself, and is therefore "evil" in the truest sense of the word. That is my belief. It's extreme, it's in the minority, it's completely at odds with yours, and I will firmly hold onto this belief until the day I die.
They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases.
They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics.
> One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
The difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic. The point is that he insulted a severely ill person personally in one of the worst ways possible and doing so through a mass medium doesn't help. I don't see a lot of space for a debate here.
I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action. (hes still in the hospital in critical condition, so I suspect he didn't)
What I am missing in the article is what he actually said.
All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.
> I am a bit surprised that this can be enforced without the person in question actually taking action.
This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question.
> All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.
Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
I would agree with this. Since the Stephen Lawrence case in the UK, there's a high degree of sensitivity in the UK towards police handling of race-hate, and hate crimes in general.
It is also maybe difficult to get across to someone viewing in the US what a major news story Muamba's illness has been in the UK, the universal condemnation of the remarks, and more generally the efforts that have gone into eradicating racism from football in the UK. It is very difficult to divorce this from its societal context.
> This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction. But still, saying "*hole" to someone wouldn't most likely be a crime (whats the proper English term for this), so I was just surprised about where the line is drawn.
> Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).
Yes, but 56 days of jail is a lot. Different countries, different handling. In Germany, this would most likely lead to a hefty fine and social work hours, which would still be a pain for a first offender.
Race-related crimes are also taken more seriously in the US.
I didn't see anything in the reported tweets that would be considered criminal in the US, though. We'd certainly jail someone for making real threats or inciting a crime, but not for mere racism.
That makes no sense, I'm sure in the US we've had many more race riots and such (The Rodney King riots and the riots when MLK was assassinated come to mind), but we still offer freedom of speech to idiots.
Besides, from my cursory reading of the Brixton riots, the protestors were mad at police inaction, not hate speech.
Half of the Brixton riots were triggered by someone dying in police custody. The other half were triggered by the Met shooting someone. The Met is regularly accused of institutional racism, so you can see where I'm going there.
The fact there was no right to free speech in English law until 1998 may also be related. (",)
I guess I'm just not seeing the crime. I understand it was a racial comment, but I don't get the impression he made any kind of threat or anything. If he was threatening people and/or saying he was going to commit some crimes, I would understand. It sounds like he was being stupid, but relatively harmless.
I say controversial because racism is still openly expressed in certain circumstances, for example Westboro Baptist Church, though that's the U.S. Most racism, in my opinion, comes from fundamentalists or those associated but of course they aren't the only ones.
I'm probably using out of context example here but WBC protests at dead soldiers funerals regularly, everyone knows that, and they're not touched. Though I suppose protest and direct prejudicial comments aren't in the same ballpark entirely.
I am going to get downvoted here, and WBC would say pretty nasty things about people like me. However, I have never heard anything to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church are racist. In fact, the founder used to be civil rights lawyer, taking cases that other white attorneys won't touch.
How is racism controversial? That would imply that its a heavily debatable topic.
Well, it's not clear cut. What can constitute "racism" or not is quite open to interpretation.
Even statements of fact or plain arguments can be interpreted as racist.
For example, if you are against illegal immigration in my country (and many others) you are labeled as "racist", even if the reasons you are against it have nothing to do with race, but say, with border control, lack of supporting infrastructure for too many immigrants, possible use of minorities as a political weapon from surrounding countries, etc.
I wouldn't support jail time for racist comments, but has anyone seen evidence that he actually made racist comments? The only tweet I've seen reproduced is "Fuck Muamba, he's dead," which is highly assholish but not so far as I can tell racist. At the same time, news reports all seem to reference "tweets" plural, so I may be missing more.
Offensive? Rude? Sure. But it doesn't seem like anything too out of the ordinary. If they had microphones in bars, they'd arrest millions for similar utterances.
I don't feel any pity for this guy from a personal point of view, and I can only hope he learns a lesson because of this instead of going down a darker path of more hate.
However, I still have real issues and concerns with him being jailed for making a racist comment. This seems an awful lot like a slippery slope that we don't want to go down. Any law that restricts what we can say or think scares me when information continues to become easier to pass along into the "public domain."
Given that the UK recently extradited a UK citizen for breaking an American law, does this mean that racist Americans could be extradited to the UK for posting a tweet which incites racial hatred?
Somehow I doubt it, although the logic is superficially sound.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Good grief. It's the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, not merely a "clause in a law". And I don't know the specifics to which you are referring, but the UK does not have such a guarantee of speech rights. There are occasional flame wars to that effect in our share social circle.
So no: there is no way in hell that any US court will order an extradition for a prosecution of a pure act of speech. They occasionally break that rule internally, of course. But no way would any politician allow a foreign court to do it.
Yes, it's the first clause of the US Bill Of Rights. So? Still a clause in law.
And that's the point; the gp was, I _believe_, complaining about the perceived lack of equity in a relationship that has the US extraditing citizens of the UK for actions that are crimes in their jurisdiction but not in the UK, when it would never be considered to be allowed the other way.
But it's not even remotely symmetric. In one direction it's just a crime being prosecuted, and the UK has similar laws that could conceivably apply. In the other it's a prima facie violation of (stated without hyperbole) the single most important law of the nation.
See the difference?
And the "never be considered to be allowed the other way" bit is silly. The US has extradition treaties with most of the industrialized world, and extradites criminals routinely (although perhaps not necessarily fairly or symmetrically). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S...
But they won't extradite anyone for this crime, for reasons of fundamental constitutional law. That's not going to change no matter how many downvotes the first amendment receives above.
I've been trying to find a case where the US extradited someone to a jurisdiction where they were accused of committing a crime not on US books. I can't.
No. The 2003 Extradition treaty certainly is a UK law. But (and for the record: I think that extradition is unjust too) this has nothing to do what our discussion at all.
You want the US to extradite people for hate speech. I pointed out that no, that will never happen because of the clear text of the first amendment to the constitution. And you started flaming away, I guess because I'm American and therefore The Enemy.
But the point remains that no matter how symmetric and just and wonderful its extradition policy might come to be, US law would never allow such an extradition. It will not happen. So stop flaming and find another shibboleth.
No I do not want to extradite anyone for hate speech; see, this is what's known as an _example_. What I would like is for the US to stop being quite so bullying in their dealings with the rest of the world.
And you're not The Enemy; I don't have any enemies. I'm Irish and therefore neutral and too small for anyone to care about. ",)
The UK is a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10 of which guarantees freedom of expression. This became law in the UK with the 1998 Human Rights Act.
The text of the ECHR does explicitly mention "duties and responsibilities" and so is perhaps not as strong as the Bill of Rights in this regard, but it is wrong to say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law.
And the predicted argument about "does the UK have free speech?" has begun. I didn't say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law. I said the UK doesn't have a guarantee of the same form of the first amendment, as witnessed by the linked article where someone went to jail for tweets.
Except hate speech is not covered under that amendment, neither is incitement of violence. These restrictions come from Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitution.
No, that's flatly incorrect. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States for more references than either of us can reasonably read in the time alloted to this silly flame war. Hate speech is "legal" in the US.
And even if it were not, and this was an edge case where the first amendment might not apply: there is no way a US court would order an extradition to a another country and let a foreign court (!) interpret the US constitution. None.
I never claimed they were planning to extradite someone, just that even in the US, free speech has its limits. Check out this post I wrote at roughly the same time to someone else:
Even in the US, you can be sued civilly for hateful comments and jailed for comments that could be construed as inviting or inciting violence.
I don't know the full story, the tweets are gone and the BBC didn't reproduce them.
It really seems like everyone here (including in the other thread) is trying to read more than what I wrote. Both you and the other person I was talking to used the word "crime", when I never remotely hinted at calling it a crime.
Yes, but they're not directed at a public figure who was critical in hospital at the time. Some people responded by calling him on his racism, he apparently doubled down, and someone made a complaint to the police.
Huffpo has a screenshot, but it's been blurred to the point of incomprehensibility.
In England most offences are treated more severely if there's a racial motivation.
I post this here because I'm pleased that no-one is saying (as far as I can tell) that Twitter should be responsible for what its users post. No one is calling for Twitter to have more oversight or to control their users. People have been happy for the existing laws to take its course.
Read: everybody who knew him outside the field. And do you have any evidence that the UK is become an Orwellian state? I am really surprised at the cheer amount of irresponsible comments in HN lately.
Your first 4 points apply to virtually every other country I know, to varying degrees. As for jailing the guy, it might sound surprising, but it is only so because a lot of people dont know how advanced the US is in terms of freedom of speech. You can say almost anything and get away with it. Some other countries are moving to that directions, albeit slower that expected. Slamming the UK alone for this ignores general developments across the globe.
hmmmm... I've said many times before "Good thing its not against the law to be an asshole". Turns out it IS against the law. Sure this guy is the lead candidate for Twat of The Year... but 56 days in jail for being an ignorant douche-bag is a dangerous trend to set. If we locked up every ignorant douche-bag we'd have to build A LOT more jails here in the US.
If I remember rightly the reason this guy was jailed was not because he made racist commands AT Muamba, rather than about. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that there is a huge difference between making racist comments about someone and making racist comments to them.
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.
1) It's a tweet (of all things)..
2) Which incites nothing, and is an expression of opinion
And the guy gets hauled off to jail for 2 months because of it? This is the kind of behavior I'd expect from China, not an ostensibly first world nation!
*edit
I meant that literally, too. My mind simply ceases processing the circumstances under which a completely harmless tweet, in a place like Great Britain, can be grounds for legal action. I thought (mistakenly) that freedom of speech was recognized a bit more with the US's allies.