A video out of the UK shows plain clothed police officers visiting a man’s home over “offensive” comments he posted on Facebook during a political discussion.

After getting involved in the online exchange, the man was surprised just a day later by cops turning up on his doorstep and asking him to make an appointment at his local police station.

The officers in the clip make it clear that their visit is because of a Facebook post, but refuse to specify what the man had posted and how it was against the law.

The man asked what he is potentially being charged with, to which the officer responds “malicious communications,” which he defines as making comments on an online forum “deemed to be offensive.”

The man denies that he ever said anything “malicious” and was merely engaging in political debate.

According to the description accompanying the video, the man was not arrested but he may have to appear in court.

People in the UK are routinely arrested and questioned by police for social media posts under the Malicious Communications Act.

The law states that it is illegal to send messages “for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety,” although this has been broadened to such a degree that anyone can claim “distress or anxiety” simply because they were offended.

In 2017, it was reported that British police had arrested 3,395 people for ‘offensive online comments’ in the space of a year.

Last year, Harry Miller, a former police officer himself, was interrogated by cops for 30 minutes merely for liking a tweet that was deemed to be offensive to the transgender community.

As we highlighted earlier this week, a 12-year-old boy faced national condemnation and police arrest after he sent racist comments to a multi-millionaire black Premier League footballer.

Police resources were also apparently used to investigate people who posted tweets critical of the coronavirus lockdown.

Meanwhile, violent crime continues to soar to record highs and people are being told that police may not be able to respond to crimes like burglaries because they don’t have the resources.

Argue with someone about politics on Facebook though and they’ll be round in a flash.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith has called for the word “pro-life” to be retired in a similar manner to the Washington Redskins because it’s ‘racist’ and ‘misogynistic’.

Yes, really.

“This point cannot be emphasized enough, or too often,” tweeted Smith. “The moniker ‘pro-life,’ so often used in the service of not just misogyny but also racism, should be retired right along with Aunt Jemima and the ‘Redskins’ team name.”

Smith deleted his tweet shortly after his comments started to receive a backlash.

This is by no means the first major call to have offensive words retired in recent months.

As we previously highlighted, the United Nations asserted back in May that people shouldn’t use politically incorrect terms like “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” “husband” and “wife” in order to “help create a more equal world.”

The board game Scrabble also recently announced that it was banning 236 “bigoted” words for its international tournaments.

Earlier this year, a German panel of linguists which decides on a new word to ‘ban’ every year announced the ‘un-wording’ of the term “climate hysteria” because it undermines propaganda about man-made global warming.

“If Smith were a little brighter, the irony of his demand might make his own head explode,” writes Dave Blount. “Abortion kills a far higher percentage of black than white babies. Why would opposing it be racist?”

“The answer: because everything the radical left doesn’t like is racist. The word “racist” has no meaning other than to serve as a club to impose compliance. It is effective only because people are afraid of being canceled if they are branded a witch, I mean a racist.”

In attempting to retire the use of words, leftists are literally attempting to re-create 1984’s Newspeak dictionary, which shrank in size year after year in order to eliminate language and limit free thought and free speech, making it harder for the plebs to vocalize their opposition to The Party.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss has quit and issued a scathing explanation, saying the newspaper is no longer a place where ‘intellectual curiosity’ is tolerated, and that she was essentially forced out by a woke mob of insiders who disagreed with her ‘wrongthink’.

Weiss, who identifies politically as more of a classic liberal, or a ‘left-leaning centrist’ as she has described it, has charged the Times of “unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge”.

“My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views,” Weiss wrote in her resignation letter.

“They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m ‘writing about the Jews again.’ Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” she added.

Weiss regularly writes positive opinion pieces concerning the Israeli government, and focuses on anti-semitism issues, and has thus been labelled a zionist by those who disagree with her outlook.

“My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly ‘inclusive’ one, while others post ax emojis next to my name.” Weiss explains in her letter.

“Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.” she adds.

Weiss angered the woke mob that has taken over the NYT earlier this year when she publicly revealed the behind the scenes chaos that unfolded when the newspaper published an Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), in which he advocated deploying the military to put down unrest in the wake of the death of George Floyd.

Weiss defended the decision to publish Cotton’s piece, and revealed that a “new guard” at the Times is pushing a world view of “safetyism,” which threatens free speech.

The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

Weiss blasted the Times for allowing “this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public.”

“Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery,” Weiss continues, adding “But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times.”

“Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.” Weiss scathingly comments.

“What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.” She outlines in the letter.

Weiss describes the woke mob at the Times as like being almost non-human:

“The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people,” she asserts.

“This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its ‘diversity’; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.” she adds.

“America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper,” Weiss concludes.