Why do people get arrested for online posts
- Details
- Hits: 133
Can you get arrested for something you've posted online
Harassment and defamation can persist online for years, sometimes even over a decade, without intervention, causing prolonged distress and significant reputational and mental health damage to countless individuals. At the same time, seemingly innocuous posts can lead to disproportionate responses, including content removal, police investigations, and legal proceedings—particularly if they attract complaints from recognised minority groups.
Free speech in the UK and the erosion of the Rule of Law
What happens when you get harassed in the name of free speech
What are the limits of free speech according to the Rule of Law
Why is free speech linked to online harm
Does posting behind a paywall makes a difference to free speech rules
What to do if you are arrested by the police for exercising your right to free speech
Free speech in the UK and the erosion of the Rule of Law
Have you ever found yourself hesitating before posting something online, second-guessing how others might perceive your words? If so, you are not alone. Many people today grapple with the fear of inadvertently breaching vague or inconsistently applied laws, which has created an atmosphere of self-censorship and anxiety about participating in public discourse. The rule of law is the principle that everyone, including governments and powerful individuals, must follow the law. Laws should be clear, fair, and applied equally to all people, regardless of status or position. The idea is that no one is above the law, and the law should be enforced consistently and justly. It also ensures that people's rights and freedoms are protected through established legal processes. However, the increasing ambiguity surrounding free speech laws in the UK threatens this principle, exposing individuals to potential legal repercussions and reputational harm. Even seasoned legal professionals now struggle to provide clear guidance due to this uncertainty.
When laws become unclear or are enforced selectively—particularly concerning sensitive areas of political or social speech—this threatens the integrity of democratic systems. In such instances, societies risk slipping into environments that resemble oligarchies or authoritarian regimes rather than functioning democracies. Unfortunately, this erosion of the rule of law in the UK has been facilitated by governmental institutions, law enforcement agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the judiciary—whether through direct action or passive complicity. The very same people and institutions who for years have been telling us all that the rule of law is the be-all and end-all of democracy, and that human rights and the right to free speech take precedence over a woman's right to not be harassed or abused online, have now become the enforcers of political bias.
These self-proclaimed guardians of human rights have, in some cases, sent individuals to jail for years over something as minor as retweeting a controversial post. Are these institutions now turning political? Can you still trust the police and the judiciary to remain impartial and apolitical?
What happens when you get harassed in the name of free speech
One particularly telling case I encountered involved Alex (a pseudonym), a university student who shared his political opinions on gender policy through an online discussion forum. His post, which expressed frustration with new government policies, rapidly attracted both support and criticism. Within hours, the university administration had received hundreds of complaints, labelling his post potentially inflammatory. The institution responded by summoning Alex for a disciplinary hearing.
What began as a genuine attempt to engage in democratic discourse quickly escalated into a nightmare of social isolation and harassment. Online abuse soon followed, leaving Alex marginalized and alienated from his peers. His case serves as a stark reminder of how quickly public discourse can devolve into hostility and punitive action, demonstrating the risks associated with sharing contraversial personal views in today’s digital landscape.
What are the limits of free speech according to the Rule of Law
In the UK, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees the right to freedom of expression. However, this protection is not absolute and is subject to limitations designed to prevent harm and uphold public order. Defamation laws are one such limitation, ensuring that false and damaging statements about individuals can be legally challenged. The Defamation Act 2013 provides a legal framework for those who have suffered reputational harm due to false statements. A pertinent example is the case of Jack Aaronson v. Stones, where my client, Jack Aaronson, faced widespread false allegations of sexual assault shared across social media platforms. The immediate consequences were severe: Aaronson's reputation suffered immense damage, placing his career and personal life in jeopardy.
Although legal action eventually led to an apology and financial compensation, the lasting harm to his reputation was not easily remedied. Similarly, in David Paisley v. Graham Linehan, Paisley, an actor and activist, faced alleged defamatory comments from comedy writer Graham Linehan. This sparked a wave of online abuse, illustrating the profound impact defamatory statements can have on individuals' lives. While the court’s decision is still pending, this case highlights how defamation law offers clearer protections compared to the often ambiguous boundaries of general free speech rights.
There are legitimate limitations for free speech that are compliant with the rule of law. The defamation laws are clear, backed by previous judicial decisions, which is why there aren’t many defamation cases in the UK relative to the vast amount of content being posted online. The rules are relatively clear to everyone, and when in doubt, the courts can provide a final judgment. In contrast, the concept of online harm remains vague and subjective, making it a much greater threat to free speech due to its undefined and potentially politicised nature.
Why is free speech linked to online harm
In recent years, one of the most significant threats to free speech in the UK has been the cryptic concept of "online harm." The problem lies in its subjective nature—definitions of harm often depend on the individual claiming to be the victim, making it difficult to establish clear, objective legal standards. This ambiguity endangers free expression, creating an environment where people may avoid discussing contentious topics out of fear of facing undefined consequences.
The enforcement of online harm laws often appears selective and politically motivated. There are growing concerns about whether law enforcement and judicial decisions are influenced by political agendas, leading to inconsistent application of these laws. Such selective enforcement fosters an atmosphere of fear and suppression, drawing parallels with authoritarian regimes that use vague legal frameworks to silence dissent and intimidate political opponents.
Who decides what stays online
Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and TikTok are often the first arbiters of what content remains visible. Their moderation policies, however, frequently appear arbitrary and inconsistent. Some posts that violate platform guidelines remain accessible, while others are removed despite adhering to the stated rules. There is mounting evidence that political influence plays a significant role in shaping these moderation practices. In the UK, content critical of government policies—especially regarding immigration or public health mandates—has been disproportionately targeted for removal, particularly since recent governmental shifts in power. This selective enforcement has intensified public concerns about the erosion of free speech in digital spaces.
Does posting behind a paywall make a difference to free speech rules
The answer is no. Some individuals mistakenly believe that posting content on subscription-based platforms such as Rumble, Substack, or OnlyFans protects them from legal scrutiny. However, this assumption is misguided. Defamation laws, hate speech regulations, and privacy protections remain fully applicable, regardless of whether the content is accessible only to paying subscribers. Consider, for instance, the potential legal risks of sharing private details about public figures behind a paywall. Even in closed forums, revealing personal information without consent could constitute a breach of privacy laws, resulting in legal action. The fact that access is restricted does not exempt content from legal consequences, making it essential for creators to remain aware of the legal responsibilities tied to their online behaviour.
What to do if you are arrested by the police for exercising your right to free speech
If you find yourself subject to arrest, police investigation, or court proceedings due to online speech, it is crucial to approach the situation with caution. Duty solicitors often advise pleading guilty for the sake of expediency, but this can have long-lasting consequences. In cases where immediate legal advice is required, it is advisable to respond with a "no comment" statement until consulting an experienced social media lawyer. At Cohen Davies, we offer specialized legal support from solicitors with over 25 years of accreditation in criminal and social media law. Our experts provide thorough, practical advice designed to protect your rights and ensure fair treatment within the legal system.
