Britain Keyboard Censorship

---

Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Metropolitan Police, publicly stated that he is willing to "extradite keyboard warriors...whether you are in this country or from further afield, we will come after you, and extradite and imprison you," over online posts, particularly those who oppose wokeness.  U.K. Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, is quite vague about what words in particular cannot be posted online.  Are they living in England or North Korea?

Attempting to stop rioters which caused violence by right-wing politics by threatening them may be useful modus operandi, but the Brits crossed the line by zealously including Americans threatening to extradite them and jail them for posting their online ideas.

Since Britain does not have a protection for free speech similar to the American First Amendment, Parliament would have to decide what specific words are provocative to incite riots.  To have a British official threaten Americans with a crime for what they write online on American soil is ludicrous.  First, because Americans, especially Texans, by nature are opinionated, as they are used to freedom, especially of thought and speech.  British citizens don't really have protection of free speech, and now they are further muzzled, under their common law.  However, since 1998, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteed them freedom of expression, and Messrs. Rowley and Stamer, are ignoring this fact.  Their control of what I - a Scottish-American writer - choose to write online would be moot, and defended by a good lawyer who could prevent extradition by defending my rights afforded by the American Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

But in changing times such as these, Parliament could succumb to political pressure.  Only they can decide which words in particular are not acceptable and might be construed as inciting riots.

Americans are willing to assume the risk of punishment when a writer communicates his/her unsavory ideas for the benefit of public knowledge, and even an injunction could prevent an unpopular article from being published per the libel laws.  But computers move faster than the courts so nowadays confusion reigns.

Abridging freedom of speech is not the answer.  Canceling freedom of thought is dangerous.  A balance must be found balancing the rights of the citizens by not stifling the debate and the government's control.  Silencing the opposition to prevent harm doesn't work, it only forces them to go underground.  I am willing to assume the risk in order to protect free speech, but then I presently live in the USA, but when I step on UK soil do I have to fear that the police can arrest me and jail me because Mr. Rowley disagrees with the ideas I posted online?  He does not have that authority.  Who put him in charge of keyboard censorship?

I think Mr. Stamer owes Americans clarification and an apology.  The EU should keep its nose out of our business, and if the UK has unemployment problems, they should resolve them before interfering with what people can post, and Parliament should decide what words exactly are prohibited before threatening to extradite and jail Americans for exercising their constitutional rights of free speech.

—Alinka Zyrmont