Graham Linehan is an award-winning Irish TV writer. He’s created shows that some of you will know but that aren’t among my staples, like Father Ted, Black Books, and The IT Crowd. He’s also a high-profile gender-critical activist and frequent online combatant.
Linehan was arrested on Monday over his tweets when his American Airlines from Phoenix landed at London Heathrow, because the British government regulates online speech – including speech that takes place outside the U.K.
The Met Police arrested a man in his 50s “on suspicion of inciting violence.” Linehan says five armed officers intercepted him (standard for airport policing; weapons weren’t drawn). He was taken to a hospital for high blood pressure and released on bail, with a condition that he couldn’t use Twitter, pending further inquiries.
Police questioned him about three April posts.
If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.
— Graham Linehan ️ (@Glinner) April 20, 2025
A photo you can smell pic.twitter.com/uWB2fCqQ6i
— Graham Linehan ️ (@Glinner) April 19, 2025
I hate them. Misogynists and homophobes. Fuck em
— Graham Linehan ️ (@Glinner) April 19, 2025
There are several overlapping statutes that UK prosecutors use:
- Encouraging or Assisting Crime (Serious Crime Act 2007, ss.44–46) Criminalizes doing an act capable of encouraging/assisting an offence (e.g., assault), coupled with intent to encourage or belief the offence will be committed. The target crime doesn’t have to actually occur. This is the closest fit to a post saying some general group of people should be assaulted.
- Improper Use of a Public Electronic Communications Network (Communications Act 2003, s.127).
Covers messages that are grossly offensive or menacing. Case law (e.g., Chambers v DPP) sets a high bar: “bad taste” is not enough; it must be grossly offensive in context. Often charged for online speech, but it’s a stretch if police are calling this “inciting violence.” - Offensive Communications (Malicious Communications Act 1988, s.1.) Sending indecent, threatening, or grossly offensive messages with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
- Stirring up hatred (Public Order Act 1986) Criminalizes using threatening/abusive/insulting words intended/likely to stir up hatred.
American Airlines Operates From London Heathrow Terminal 3
Note that these laws permit prosecution of non-citizens tweeting outside the U.K. That level of extraterritoriality is rarely enforced, but easily could be if a subject travels to the U.K. or transits Heathrow.
Let’s get past for a moment that the U.K. government has internalized George Orwell as a playbook rather than a warning. The use of a patchwork of overlapping statutes creates an opportunity for police and investigators to forum shop to find and charge offenses – it’s not even clear ex ante what speech puts you at risk, and gives tremendous leverage to the government to broadly chill speech and dissent from orthodox viewpoints as a result.
American Airlines at London Heathrow
There’s also no statutory definition even of “grossly offensive” so what’s illegal is whatever prosecutors say is illegal in the moment. And since you can be guilty even if no violence occurs, mere hyperbolic online rhetoric is enough.
Furthermore, this is a way to just shut someone up online without an actual prosecution. Social media gag orders are common as a condition of bail in online speech cases. The process itself is a punishment (custody, hospital checks).
In the U.K., by the way, “[d]escribing a middle-aged white woman as a “Karen” is borderline unlawful, a judge has said” be careful what you tweet if you plan to transit London Heathrow!
Unfortunately such bad laws will be noted and will spread to other countries.
“free speech is not consequence-free speech “.
It may be ok in US to vomit hate from the collective mouth for fun and giggles but next thing you know you have J6 insurrections getting full military honours….oh wait…..
Or just don’t go to the UK. Or the EU. Not until they stop the insanity of imprisoning their own for tweets while letting illegal migrants that commit rape go free. I won’t be a party to their cultural suicide.
This is what happens when the woke left gets in power. Hopefully the Democrats can get a central mainstream candidate who is not captive to the woke left.
@Rick: completely agree with your comment
@Mantis: please stay away and make the EU happy you aren’t around. Typical American response “if they don’t do like we want we won’t go”. Are you 5?
Looks like the UK now is “the beatings will continue until moral improves.”
lol at these comments. Attempted insurrections apparently only happen where freedom of speech exists, who knew!
@Ray: You have a new friend request from Nick Maduro.
There is an ancient adage: ‘Do not make assumptions about your “rights” when traveling anywhere abroad’. They may not be what you wish, or may not exist at all.
@Mantis and @Nick – I just want to make sure I understand correctly. A democratically elected government…in a country you do not live in…has established laws to combat societal violence. You disagree and, because you disagree, you are calling on others to CANCEL them. Did I miss something or are you pulling the same sh!t you enjoy accusing others of doing?
Asking for a friend…
Gary, thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Any blogger, like the Author of ‘View From The Wing”, could write something that in the future (ex post) could be considered unacceptable speech by some governmental authority. Then that author (LOL: whoever that might be), would be subject to arrest and punishment. Especially if they travel a lot.
In fact, any commentator in a blog like “View From The Wing”, and could make a loose comment, which angers someone in another country or their own country (in other words, any country anywhere) and be subject to arrest.
Free Speech is important. In fact, defending free speech, in the comments in a blog might ex post could put the commentator into hot water.
Actually, considering the above, I should shut up now and live my life.
@Rick:
“free speech is not consequence-free speech “.
But that’s not what that phrase means in this context. That phrase refers to the fact that people can shun you, a private employer could choose not to retain you, or your spouse might leave you. It specifically does not mean that the government can punish you for it. The very definition of free speech under the US First Amendment is that the government cannot punish you for it. Government punishment is not the consequence that phrase describes.
As for everything else, Gary nailed it. I think the UK and EU are lost when it comes to free speech. But as someone else noted, they are sovereign entities and sadly can do what they want to the citizens that elected their governments. That’s the difference between Europe and the US. In the US, sovereignty originates with the electorate, not the government. The citizens of the electorate have rights the government is created to protect, not to infringe. Fine, that’s a difference. Here, we enjoy a level of free speech that makes other countries uncomfortable. That difference is okay, as long as it stays within its respective borders. When the UK seeks to enforce its standards outside its territory, that’s just wrong. The attempts by the UK and the EU and Australia and Canada to enforce their standards on the entirety of the internet, on citizens of other countries, on the rest of the world—that, IMHO, is wrong.
I love the UK. I desire to return there for another visit soon. But as a citizen of the US, I often express criticism of UK (and other) government and laws on topics ranging from immigrant grooming gangs to law enforcement to social media policy. I see those items as fair topics of criticism, because I believe free speech and freedom of thought are natural human rights, not something government grants to me. I don’t need my government’s permission to express those views peacefully. But if I, as a citizen of the US, have to fear being prosecuted by the government of other countries when I travel to or transit through there because of things I did and said here in the US, then yes, there is a problem, and I have to reconsider whether that risk is worth it. BTW, I feel the same way about our government hindering travel here simply because of things visitors have said about the US.
@Rick
“Vomit?” All he did was rightfully call out the Trans defense and their attack on legitimate women. The UK should worry more about all those migrant boat and low IQ third worlders. Also the j6 people are heros and were political prisoners until they were just pardoned.
If only the ok cared the same about their own people vs the brown third world rapists.
In the long run, this won’t really matter. The UK won’t be around very much longer. My guess, the citizens of the UK will eventually choose to become a state of Saudi Arabia.
@parker
Lefties like you are we need another Pinochet
It’s not like the US government also retaliates against people for free speech… (e.g. the Tufts student who spent weeks in jail and was nearly deported because she wrote an op-ed that criticized the government of a certain other country that some US politicians absolutely worship.)