In the end, no charges were filed, but the case highlights how lighthearted satire can trigger official scrutiny — and why many in the profession may choose silence over summons.
The reach of censorship now extends to include the murky terrain of “hate” as well. Introduced with the intention of protecting marginalized groups, hate crimes legislation can be applied with disturbing vagueness, with one widely cited example of police in 2020 investigating more than 120,000 so-called “non-crime hate incidents” — remarks that aren’t deemed criminal but are still logged in official records, sometimes affecting future employment checks.
There’s other legislation treading similarly hazy ground: In 2022, the government passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, giving law enforcement expanded powers to shut down protests deemed “noisy” or “disruptive.” It was a watershed moment, where volume not violence became grounds for arrest. And the law now acts as a muffler on public expression, particularly for those on the margins.
Meanwhile, new legislation like the Online Safety Act empowers regulators to censor digital content deemed “harmful,” which is a dangerously elastic term. The act is meant as a shield for children and vulnerable users but, in practice, it extends state reach into satire, parody and legitimate political critique. And with pressure from the U.S. mounting after last week’s visit from Washington’s Congressional delegation, it’s becoming a transatlantic problem.
When speech becomes risk, silence becomes strategy — and democratic discourse collapses inward. This isn’t about law and order. It’s about fear and control. And while the government insists it’s a matter of “balance” and protecting people from harm, especially in a volatile political climate, balance implies proportionality — and there’s nothing proportionate about arresting an elderly woman for a slogan or raiding a family home over a WhatsApp message.
These examples aren’t outliers. They’re signals of a state clutching its narrative so tightly, it risks suffocating dissent altogether.
