[omh]

This is based on statistics for the Malicious Communications Act. That includes people sending, for example, threatening messages to an ex partner.

Not all of them are online posts, in fact probably a minority

[piker]

That's what would be reasonably expected, but it's not backed up by the information.

> The total arrest figures are likely to be far higher because eight forces failed to respond to freedom of information requests or provided inadequate data, including Police Scotland, the second largest force in the UK. Some forces also included arrests for “threatening” messages, though these do not fall under the specified sections. [emphasis added]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr... (https://archive.is/kC5x2#selection-3325.0-3325.335)

[omh]

Thanks. That wasn't clear from the Mail article above.

But the Times article also says:

> A spokeswoman for Leicestershire police said crimes under Section 127 and Section 1 include “any form of communication” such as phone calls, letters, emails and hoax calls to emergency services.

So I think the categorisation is a mess, and probably not even consistent across forces

[Forgeties79]

Maybe I am reading these wrong, but it doesn’t appear to me these sources indicate that a significant number of people are being arrested for “speech offenses,” which I’m guessing you are using as shorthand for statements akin to those that would fall under “free speech” in the US. If I’m not seeing it or I am not correctly defining what you mean, feel free to correct me. I’m having to make some assumptions here

[nateabele]

How many arrests does it take to chill free speech?

[bawolff]

How many were for politcal speech as opposed to say threatening to murder someone?

[aunty_helen]

> Not all of them

Do you understand the concept of a slippery slope? Anyone being arrested for online posts is too many from a free speech absolutist pov.

[anthem2025]

Free speech absolutism is a nonsensical position.