Manipulative Claim As If Free Expression on the Internet Is More Restricted in the UK Than in Russia

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Free Expression
86
VIEWS

On January 15, during the broadcast of “Three & Co” on POSTV, co-host Guri Sultanishvili claimed that while around 600 people have been arrested in Russia for their social media posts, the number of such arrests in the UK exceeds 12,000.

Guri Sultanishvili [4:10]: “Do you know how many people have been arrested for this in Russia? Around 600. For a Facebook post. And do you know how many people have been arrested in the UK? Over 12,000. Not for inciting violence or planning something terroristic but just for expressing a certain opinion that is not politically correct on social networks. The other day, they arrested the creator of a group on Telegram that is not even anti-immigration but a far-right movement that is not radical, just Eurosceptic. There are such parties in Germany and France and they are coming to power. Now, there is some law – I need to look into it more carefully – that is being formulated regarding pubs because the most non-politically correct discussions about vulnerable groups happen in pubs, and they want to regulate this.”

   Free Expression

The comparison of the number of arrests over social media posts and the claim that freedom of expression is more restricted in the UK than in Russia is manipulative. In reality, specific cases indicate that Russian citizens are arrested and prosecuted en masse for posting critical statements on social media. The Internet Freedom Index also reflects the difficult situation in Russia in this regard. In the UK, the law targets specific crimes, including terrorism and incitement to violence. As for the law mentioned by Sultanishvili, it actually pertains to workers’ rights, and some critics have linked one of its provisions to a potential restriction on freedom of expression in pubs.

  • Arrests in the UK

When comparing the examples of Russia and the UK, it is important to consider the nature of the offenses and the legal provisions under which a citizen can be arrested for social media activity. Sultanishvili claims that people are arrested not for inciting terrorism or violence but simply for expressing their opinions. In the UK, Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 criminalizes sending messages via public electronic communication networks that are offensive or of an obscene, indecent, or menacing character. The law also penalizes the deliberate spread of false information intended to cause annoyance or anxiety. The penalties for such offenses include fines or imprisonment for up to six months. Additionally, the UK also enforces the Malicious Communications Act 1988. In 2025, a new Online Safety Act will also come into effect in the UK.

While the total number of arrests under these laws in 2024 is not publicly available, information can be found on cases reported in London. For example, according to London police records, a total of 8,573 people were arrested and 3,168 people were charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act between April 2008 and May 2022. Under the Malicious Communications Act, 18,071 people were arrested, with 3,881 charges filed during the same period. More recent data published by the London police shows that from April 2022 to March 2024, a total of 568 people were arrested and 203 people were charged under Section 127. As regards the Malicious Communications Act, there were 2,477 arrests and 590 charges.

The specific figures cited by Guri Sultanishvili in his broadcast cannot be found in open sources. However, similar comparisons, stating that 3,300 people were arrested in the UK while only 400 in Russia, have circulated on social media for years. The original source of this claim is Konstantin Kisin, a Russia-born, half-British comedian, writer, and podcast co-host. His interview, where he makes this comparison [at 26:26], was recorded in 2019, based on data from 2016-2017.

For years, social media users have relied on Kisin’s statements to compare Russia and the UK. Many refer to data from the human rights group Agora, which reported that 411 people faced prosecution in Russia in 2017 for social media activity. In the majority of cases, media users were accused of extremism. These could include “inciting hatred or animosity,” “rehabilitation of Nazism,” calls to separatism,” or “insulting believers’ feelings.” Western media often report about politically motivated cases in Russia, initiated against activists or critical citizens on these charges. The provision on “insulting believers’ feelings,” for example, is frequently used against social media users who post what authorities consider provocative content. On the other hand, UK comparisons are often based on a 2017 article in The Times, which cited 2016 data showing that over 3,300 people were arrested or questioned under Section 127 of the Communications Act. However, the same article notes that in half of these cases, investigations were dropped before prosecution. Additionally, Section 127 is not limited to social media, and it also applies to emails and other forms of electronic communication. Moreover, the Russian figure represents prosecutions, while the UK figure represents arrests, making the comparison inappropriate for many reasons. For example, the content of the clauses differs: in the UK, they are applied to a broader range of cases, while the data from Russia reflects arrests for the activity on social media. Additionally, the analysis of cases shows the difference between the two countries in the application of the laws. In Russia, many citizens and journalists have been arrested for expressing critical opinions or posting government-opposed views on social media. It is also worth noting that in the UK, cases brought under Section 127 that result in citizens being subjected to community service or fines are often debated.

  • How Is Social Media Activity Criminalized in Russia?

According to Freedom House’s Internet and Digital Media Freedom Index, Russia scores 20 points and is classified as a “Not Free” country. The organization reports that the already dire state of internet freedom in Russia has worsened significantly during the past reporting year, stating that “government agencies go to extensive lengths to surveil those who criticize the government online.” Courts have imprisoned individuals for criticizing the government and the invasion of Ukraine online. As of May 2024, 935 criminal cases were opened against Russian citizens under laws that criminalize discrediting or spreading false information about the Russian military. Journalists or citizens who use the words “war” or “invasion” to describe what Russia calls a “special military operation” face prosecution. Criminal cases were opened against several citizens on these grounds.

“Criminal and administrative charges are widely used to stifle critical discussion online. Numerous individuals have been charged for their posts or reposts on social media, including a number of users charged under legislation that criminalizes discrediting the Russian military and participants in the special military operation,” the report states.

According to data published by Novaya Gazeta, since 2010, over 30,000 cases have been initiated in Russia over social media posts and “memes.” For example, in 2023, a coin collector from Saratov was prosecuted for posting a photo of a 1938 Nazi German coin in a private Odnoklassniki group. Under drug propaganda laws, individuals have been arrested for posting photos of cannabis leaves online. There are many more examples in the media of activists and journalists being imprisoned for social media activity. In 2024, Forbes editor Sergey Mingazov was arrested for reposting an article accusing Russia of atrocities in Bucha. In 2023, 20-year-old Olesya Krivtsova was placed under house arrest and forbidden from using the internet after posting about the Crimean Bridge explosion on Instagram. Russia even put her on the list of terrorists and extremists. That same year, a dual Russian-American citizen was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for criticizing Russia, its leadership, and the war in Ukraine on social media. There are other stories about citizens imprisoned simply for liking or sharing certain posts.

Additionally, after invading Ukraine, Russia’s media regulatory body, Roskomnadzor, blocked Facebook and Instagram and accused Meta of extremist activities.

By contrast, the UK scores 78/100 in Freedom House’s Internet Freedom Index, classifying it as a “Free” country. The report states that during the reporting period, the internet in the UK has remained free and accessible, with few major constraints on content. The UK government has taken actions to counter illegal and “harmful” online content, though the full implications of these efforts have yet to be seen. The state’s surveillance and other potential privacy violations have remained a concern.

The report notes that while political expression and other forms of online activity are generally protected, legal restrictions exist on hate speech, online harassment, and copyright infringement. Some measures, including the 2019 Counter-Terrorism Act, could be applied in ways that violate international human rights standards. Certain laws strictly prohibit hate speech, and Freedom House notes that some of these laws are vaguely worded. For instance, one of the bans included in Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act criminalizes “grossly offensive” communications sent through the internet, and the maximum penalty is a fine (with no upper limit) or up to six months in prison. The report also mentions cases of internet users being arrested for promoting terrorism or hate speech. However, it also emphasizes that prison sentences for expressing opinions protected under international human rights norms remain rare in the UK.

  • Is the UK Considering a Law on Pubs?

The law that Guri Sultanishvili refers to is not specifically about pubs. It was proposed by the Labour Party in October 2024 and focuses on workers’ rights. For example, it includes the sections on minimum wage, unfair dismissal, sick pay, and other employment-related issues. One particular section, which later sparked controversy, relates to protecting employees from third-party sexual harassment. This provision requires employers to take steps to protect, for example, bartenders from harassment by customers. According to a study, three in five females aged 25-34 have experienced verbal abuse at work.

Critics of the initiative argue that this law could limit discussions on topics like religion and transgender rights. One of its opponents is Nigel Farage, a Member of Parliament, who has voiced concerns about its potential impact on free speech. The Equality and Human Rights Commission believes that employers need clearer guidance to avoid misinterpreting the law. Despite the criticism, a Labour Party spokesperson has defended the bill, stating that it is aimed at protecting workers and improving their lives, emphasizing that “everyone has the right to go to work in the knowledge that they will be protected from harassment in their workplace.”

The initiative concerning the workers’ rights in Britain is not directly related to pubs. However, critics argue that it could restrict citizens’ ability to discuss sensitive topics in social spaces like pubs.


The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.

Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.

Violation: Manipulation
Source

Source

post
POS TV

Last News

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Add New Playlist