Were over 3000 persons arrested in Britain for social media posts in 2018?

Question

In 2019, John Anderson interviewed Konstantin Kisin. The discussion is transcribed by me. I is the interviewer and K is for Konstantin.

K: In Russia last year 400 people were arrested for things that they posted on social media. Obviously this country is very different. How many do you think were arrested in Britain for what they said in social media?
I: ...
K: Take a guess.
I: I've no idea.
K: 3300
I: Really? Arrested for things that they said on social media? ...

Were over 3000 people arrested in Britain for social media posts in before 2019?
What are the numbers today?

ref Youtube clip : (Note that the clip is posted 2022 and original video was published in 2020)

Edit: Please note that
1) The question is about the UK, so Russia is irrelevant.
2) This discussion took place before the current war.

I don't know the source of the 3300 number but here's one relevant data point. [Essex local police department](https://www.essex.police.uk/foi-ai/essex-police/other-information/previous-foi-requests/arrests---malicious-communications-act-1988-2010-to-2020/) reports over 160 arrests per year for "malicious communications". And there are individual reported cases where social media posts are the cause. — Brian Z, Dec 15 '22 at 13:33
The UK numbers are probably based on the Malicious Communications act 1988 or section 127 of the Communications act 2003, both of which focus on indecent, offensive, or threatening communications...a better comparison would be how many were prosecuted for legitimate political dissent. — Cristobol Polychronopolis, Dec 15 '22 at 15:24
Given various TikTok trends that literally involved posting self-incriminating evidence of crimes online, this number would not surprise me. — TimRias, Dec 15 '22 at 18:13
[The Times (UK)](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d) reported that exact number for arrests in 2017 but I'm not sure where they got it. — Laurel, Dec 15 '22 at 19:51
Clarification question: If someone beats someone up and posts evidence of it on social media and is then arrested, does that count as *arrested for things that they posted on social media*? — gerrit, Dec 16 '22 at 06:55
@CristobolPolychronopolis Can "legitimate political dissent" be considered "offensive" by some? — user76284, Dec 16 '22 at 19:38
@user76284 Anything could be considered "offensive" by some, but my understanding is that such words when used in a legal context are defined more narrowly (in the US, we use phrases like "community standards" that prevent any individual from declaring their personal opinion to be legally binding). — Cristobol Polychronopolis, Dec 16 '22 at 21:33
As an American this sounds absurd. Only things you can't say are libel and slander, provided that the statement is false, or that which may cause *physical* harm, like 'fire in a crowded theater'. And State secrets, but you can say anything about *it* that you want. — Mazura, Dec 17 '22 at 02:36
@Mazura America has plenty of similar laws, laws against stalking, harassment, public nuisances, ect. Harassment law in the US often specifically refers to annoying or distressing conduct. — John, Jan 02 '23 at 05:41
Freedom of speech is just that. No one *in the US* has ever been lawfully arrested for something they could say, especially on-line. Harassment law in the US is almost entirely focused around employment. You might not be able to strike but you can quit your job w\e you want. One more caveat though: in Cali, at least, you can press charges against a *family* member for harassment. - All these idiots in the news said things that you can't do *in real life* like "stalking, harassment, public nuisances" .... premeditated murder, etc. All of which are illegal; not what's "posted on social media" — Mazura, Jan 02 '23 at 08:12
There was a case in the UK, where it seemed quite clear that there was not quite enough evidence for a conviction in a criminal case, and the defendant posted "I think I got away with it". The judge and jury took that as an admission of guilt. Was he convicted for a social media post? — gnasher729, Apr 07 '23 at 09:57
@gerrit So that's like saying someone was arrested for not wearing gloves (while stabbing his victim with a knife that has his fingerprints on it). — gnasher729, Apr 07 '23 at 10:00
@gnasher729 Considering the quality of some of the arguments going viral on social media, it wouldn't shock me if people reasoned like that. — gerrit, Apr 11 '23 at 07:26

DJClayworth · Answer 1 · 2022-12-15T17:16:26.513

51

I can't speak for the exactness of the figure, but it certainly seems plausible. According to this article about arrests for online posts in London 857 arrests were made in 2015 in London alone as a result of online activity. However this can include emails as well as social media. The reason is:

The Communications Act 2003 [which] defines illegal communication as “using public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

That's a very wide definition.

Offences include:

alleged sexual offences, including grooming, as well as complaints of stalking, racially aggravated conduct and fraud.

Note that there is no suggestion that any of the arrests are solely for posting things that disagree with the government. By contrast in Russia you can be arrested for saying online that Crimea does not belong to Russia. This is useful information because the claimant (Kisin) is clearly trying to compare UK and Russia.

edited Dec 15 '22 at 17:16

answered Dec 15 '22 at 15:23

DJClayworth

57,419
26
209
195

8

I don't think the last part about comparing it to what is happening in Russia is needed as this should just focus on what is happening in Britain. – Joe W Dec 15 '22 at 15:40
7

the communications under that act include emails and dms, neither of which could be described as posting on social media. So if the claim is based on arrests under that act, it's likely an exaggeration. (I know someone in the UK who received death threats by email, and the police mentioned this act as what they would use to charge the person when they found them.) – Kate Gregory Dec 15 '22 at 16:49
55

@JoeW Unfortunately in this life where people regularly try to make claims that sound like they are bad but really aren't you always have to address the implied subtext of the claim. – DJClayworth Dec 15 '22 at 16:52
4

We should not be resorting to whataboutism by saying there are arrests but you can be more easily arrested for less in other parts of the world. – Joe W Dec 15 '22 at 16:57
29

It's not "whataboutism". I'm pointing out how the categories of "arrests because of social media" are different in UK and Russia. – DJClayworth Dec 15 '22 at 16:59
50

@JoeW The original claim made the comparison to Russia, implying that the cases are similar. Point out that this is an apples to oranges comparison is therefor relevant to the answer. (Even if the OP thinks it is not.) – TimRias Dec 15 '22 at 18:08
@TimRias People in Russia are getting arrested for many things that the government doesn't like including holding a sign in public with text that that the government doesn't like. I don't think it is a fair comparison at all. – Joe W Dec 15 '22 at 18:20
25

@JoeW The fact that the OP is not making a fair comparison is exactly my point. – DJClayworth Dec 15 '22 at 19:09
And I am saying that the question about Britain jailing people for posting on social media can be answered without comparing their actions to Russian actions. – Joe W Dec 15 '22 at 19:28
9

I'm not saying it couldn't be. I'm saying it shouldn't be. But you are free to disagree. – DJClayworth Dec 15 '22 at 19:50
5

Every time someone replies to one of my online comments with a good point refuting my comment it causes me annoyance and needless anxiety.... So you all had better upvote my comment or I'm calling the cops. – Fraser Orr Dec 15 '22 at 20:09
5

@FraserOrr You're joking, but laws written like that lead exactly to those scary outcomes once the person being "annoyed" is powerful or influential enough. – DRF Dec 15 '22 at 20:27
1

Is there any breakdown of what kind of post led to each arrest? – eyeballfrog Dec 15 '22 at 21:30
8

@JoeW For what it's worth, in September a man in Oxford was arrested for shouting "who elected him?" during King Charles III's proclamation, and another man who held a blank sheet of paper in Parliament Square was told by a police officer that he would have been arrested if he wrote "Not My King" on it. I don't mention this to suggest an equivalence, as there isn't one - but "holding a sign in public with text that the government doesn't like" perhaps isn't the best way to draw a line between the UK and Russia's policing. – kaya3 Dec 16 '22 at 01:28
@kaya3 And that is a good example to use on the British side but they haven't made laws to make those things illegal either. – Joe W Dec 16 '22 at 02:47
1

*"By contrast in Russia you can be arrested for saying online that Crimea does not belong to Russia."* - similarly, in some European countries you can be arrested for saying that Crimea does belong to Russia. Several countries started [criminalizing](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjPg4nftv37AhXP66QKHULhAMAQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frmx.news%2Fczech-republic%2Fexpressing-support-for-russia-or-putin-criminalized-in-czechia%2F&usg=AOvVaw2ve8wZc3lUdCj0_IxDzCVp) statements supportive of Russia in the war. – vsz Dec 16 '22 at 05:42
3

Right, but shouldn't your comparison end in "whereas in the UK you can be arrested for far less"? Russia is far from the first country to punish speech prejudicial to the conduct of an ongoing war. The UK has decided to criminalize "being mildly annoying with the help of electrons". – hobbs Dec 16 '22 at 06:15
@vsz In some European countries you can also be arrested for saying Hitler did nothing wrong. This is "speech the government doesn't like" and yet most people are okay with you getting arrested for it. – user253751 Dec 16 '22 at 10:56
2

@eyeballfrog This is one that springs to mind - https://www.cnsnews.com/article/international/micky-wootten/british-veteran-arrested-causing-anxiety-displaying-lgbt-flags Without getting into the whole PC debate the police here in the UK seem to be very quick to classify things as 'hate crimes' nowadays, although as the article states the original poster wasn't arrested (nor any other people that re-posted it) as no complaint was made to police naming them. – Andy Hames Dec 16 '22 at 12:29
1

@user253751 to be cynical, I could say that they don't want to be arrested (or lose their job) for not being okay with that so of course they say they are okay with that. But instead of the extreme example with Hitler, the question of Crimea would be a fairer comparison. Less than 15% of the population has ever been Ukrainian, it was part of Ukraine for merely 23 years (while part of Russia for over 200 years total). Far be it from me to decide who is right or wrong, but it seems more suppressive if an EU country forbids saying Russia has a valid claim than if Russia forbids saying they don't. – vsz Dec 16 '22 at 12:33
1

Can you take this to chat? – DJClayworth Dec 16 '22 at 13:53

score 31 · Accepted Answer · edited Dec 16 '22 at 08:11

31

Not in 2020. In 2016.

The "3,300" figure is likely a reference to a 2017 piece in The Times.

More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times.

edited Dec 16 '22 at 08:11

Oddthinking

140,378
46
548
638

answered Dec 16 '22 at 07:32

Stacker Lee

984
3
8

2

A good find. Could it be that the numbers are consistent in following years as well? – pinegulf Dec 16 '22 at 10:52
12

This is probably the correct source for the claim. But detained is not the same as arrested, so the original claim is not fully accurate. – jpa Dec 16 '22 at 10:59
1

@jpa tbf I've been a bit vague, as I can't access the whole article, but this is available openly (and is reflected also in the title): "Nine people a day are being arrested..." – Stacker Lee Dec 16 '22 at 11:04
@pinegulf I don't know the change in figures; I would assume the quote though is reflecting that source as it is a little too coincidental, in which case it would be a misquote with respect to the year. – Stacker Lee Dec 16 '22 at 11:07
3

@jpa detained and arrested is being used interchangeably, first 2 paragraphs: "Nine people a day are being arrested for posting allegedly offensive messages online as police step up their campaign to combat social media hate speech. More than 3,300 people were detained and questioned last year over so-called trolling on social media and other online forums, a rise of nearly 50 per cent in two years, according to figures obtained by The Times." 3300 people are 9/day. – Eugene Dec 18 '22 at 06:18
@jpa and anyone else, for future reference in the UK, detained in this manner means arrested, it does not mean imprisoned though, you can be detained for an interview but for them to do that and prevent you from leaving AKA being detained, they must arrest you. – Barkermn01 Feb 11 '23 at 15:42

Were over 3000 persons arrested in Britain for social media posts in 2018?

2 Answers2

Linked