At last, some clarity on free speech.
Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 14:40
A case has gone to court after a man was spoken to by police after a (one) complaint about his tweets. They told him it would be recorded as a non-crime "hate incident", and that he might be prosecuted if he continued to tweet, so he took the police to court over their threatening behaviour.
The judge, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated". He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."
He went on: "The claimants' tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet. I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant's place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect."
Than you Mr Justice Julian Knowles.
The judge, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, said the effect of police turning up at Mr Miller's place of work "because of his political opinions must not be underestimated". He added: "To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society."
He went on: "The claimants' tweets were lawful and there was not the slightest risk that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet. I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant's place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant's right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect."
Than you Mr Justice Julian Knowles.