Authorities can target protesters not for what they say but for what they might say—e.g., detaining someone with a blank placard or parsing a punny sign as intent to offend. This 'subjunctive' approach shifts enforcement from acts to anticipated meanings, inviting arbitrary and chilling controls on dissent.
— Normalizing preemptive speech enforcement risks criminalizing intent and eroding free expression under vague standards.
Paul du Quenoy
2025.09.28
72% relevant
It highlights U.K. offenses defined by intent to cause 'distress, anxiety, or annoyance' and 'non‑crime hate incidents' recorded based on perceived offense, plus arrests for silent prayer—illustrating preemptive, perception‑based enforcement the idea warns about.
Ashley Frawley
2025.09.03
86% relevant
The article argues authorities treat online speech as a risk factor to be prevented—arresting Graham Linehan over tweets and imposing 'no more X' bail—mirroring the preemptive logic of punishing what you might say, not just what you did.
Matt Goodwin
2025.09.03
70% relevant
The piece highlights Graham Linehan’s arrest 'on suspicion of inciting violence' for tweets including 'punch him in the balls,' illustrating preemptive, expansive interpretations of incitement and the policing of anticipated meanings rather than concrete acts; it also emphasizes the chilling effect and politicization claims around UK policing.
Terry Eagleton
2025.09.01
100% relevant
The piece cites UK incidents (a blank placard stop; 'Plasticine Action' parody) to illustrate pre‑crime logic and coins a 'subjunctive theory of crime.'