Well duh, if you wander around London with an obvious backpack bomb you will get arrested.
It wasn’t actually a bomb isn’t a good defence.This is the best summary I could come up with:
An arrest has been made following reports of a man seen on social media dressed as the Manchester Arena bomber.
North Yorkshire Police said it had “received complaints about a man wearing an offensive costume depicting murderer Salman Abedi”.
The force said a man was arrested on 1 November on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
He has since been released on conditional police bail.
Abedi was responsible for the deaths of 22 people in the suicide attack at Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
Follow BBC Yorkshire on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram.
The original article contains 109 words, the summary contains 103 words. Saved 6%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Imaging living in a country where you can be arrested for wearing an offensive costume…
oh wait, i do 🙄
The force said a man was arrested on 1 November on suspicion of using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
I think there may be more to this story than just “wearing an offensive costume”, but without seeing what was said in the posts that’s sheer conjecture.
Edit
Turns out there was more to the story! Whodathunkit!
using a public communication network to send offensive messages and other offences.
This is often used to prosecute “Offensive” social media posts. I think they got count dankula using something similar to that
People often forget that their right to free speech ends where it impacts the rights of others.
I don’t think there is a “right not be offended” and i also don’t think there should be. if only for the fact that offense is entirely subjective.
I didn’t say anything about offense…
You can’t call someone a racial slur and claim it was free speech, for example.
Edit
Is it really that controversial that hate speech isn’t the same as free speech? Really?
if calling someone a racial slur is not about offense then what is it about?
Maybe you should look up the definition of hate speech.
I’m not saying it’s what happened here, but the idea it’s about “offense” is something worthy of the Daily Mail. The law doesn’t deal with opinion in reality, only headlines.
if you are not free to speak certain things then by definition you do not have free speech.