Then the title is misleading and clickbaity then. "Government is restricting speech in worrying ways" is the actual story. Or old laws not fit for purpose in modern contexts. But during the police in the title means more clicks because everyone hates the police.
Police didn't arrest J.K. Rowling for her tweets about transwomen after the new Scottish law came into force, even when she asked them to. No muddling of the new law just police... Underreach? Or not doing their job? Depends who you ask.
Either way tit for tat examples help nothing.
Fact is, police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Plus it's good to just blame them for things they aren't in control of.
Perhaps because the police aren't arresting people over mere Tweets, or their speech alone. Perhaps, just perhaps, conduct or actions or monetary support are also involved, but the headlines can only trumpet the reason for arrest, or the stated charges.
JK Rowling, CH OBE FRSL is an author whose corpus of speech is mainly her novel-writing. Now how did nine letters come to be placed after her name, even as she shortened her first two initials? Because her writing (speech) has been in exemplary service and support of the Crown and the British Empire.
So why would police arrest JK Rowling for pushing back against one wedge-issue in the culture war?
The 70-year-old Guy being arrested outside the abortion clinic for holding a rosary and praying, is that the singular offence he committed? Possession of a phoenix feather? Did he rescue Tom Marvolo Riddle's mother? I don't know. Neither do you.
It was central to the point she was making. If the police arrested her for saying a man is a man, it would make headlines across the world, and if it went to court her lawyers, who are very good at what they do, would have a field day challenging this law. Most other people do not have anywhere near this level of access to legal support or media coverage.
But as they chose not to arrest her, this shields every other woman who might want to say similar. The argument being: if JKR can say a man is a man with impunity, then why can't anyone else?
So her making these statements of truth was a win either way. But being able to mount a solid defence in court, if needed, was essential to this strategy working.
I agree but my point was not that my point was you can find tit for tat examples all over the place. It doesn't move the original conversation on. Point in fact, this morning in the news, a MET employee was reinstated after getting sacked for gross misconduct over comments apparently made whilst dealing with calls to the police. This time they're critised for the opposite of doing what they've been critised in the OP article for. Lose, lose for the police.
The people who wanted JK Rowling arrested knew her views and comments are legal. If the police arrested her and she won in court, that would set a precedent and invalidate any attempt to use that legislation to prosecute people with similar views, which activists were hoping to use it for.
At the time they really didn't, the underlying issue was recently decided in the Supreme Court.
But yes I get and agree with your point. And it also highlights an important aspect often ignored in all this. The courts decide a person's guilt irrespective of police action, case law builds up around laws that are broad and easy to misinterprete.
