In the UK, if you hold opinions that are the same as the state, then expressing yourself using your name is safe.
If you don't, then you risk having a police officer show up at your door.
If you don't, then you risk having a police officer show up at your door.
Back to the issue of overweaning government power - if you think the above is fixed by some sort of pseudo-anonymity online which is heavily tilted towards governments ( they know who people are, it's just you that doesn't ) - then I think you are sadly mistaken.
Ultimately the sunlight of transparency is much better than the murky darkness of anonymity - as comfortable as the blanket of anonymity is ( and yep I'm using that pseudo-anonymity right now ).
If you have a democracy then the laws of the land should be those that are agreed by general consent - give or take - and as such applying those laws to people in a way that means they are accountable for their actions isn't a problem - in fact it's the long standing bedrock of civilisation.
The problem in China isn't that they can catch people breaking their laws, it's a problem with how those laws are set in the first place.
So the real issue is stopping a move towards authoritarianism which is a whole larger conversation.
So in the issue above - about the journalist - the question should be about whether the particular hate speech law is correct, rather than worrying about if they appear to breach it whether they can be caught.
In the past 100 years the following countries have slipped from democracies to authoritarian states: Germany, Italy, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Argentina, Chile, Russia, Turkey, Nicaragua.
Some of them recovered, others never did. Look at Turkey for example. If you think you are safe, you aren't.
Have you considered that massively enables organised criminal elements in democracies and increases the chances of a slide into authoritarianism?
It's a bit like in the good-old days of the internet when everyone trusted everyone else - life was simple and good. Then the bad actors came, and so did SSL, firewalls, n factor auth etc etc. Search engine results became less good as people gamed the rankings.
You have to adapt.
In Europe we take a different view from America - in America mass school shootings are a price worth paying for the right to own a gun. In the UK there is a presumption that they really isn't any good reason for owning a handgun, nevermind an assault rifle, so it's pretty hard to get one.
Freedom is multi-dimensional - and not absolute. I'm free of worrying my child will be shot at school, but less free to own a gun.
Same goes for freedoms on the internet - in the end it's about a pragmatic choice about what's best and I'm saying that pragmatic choice is already encapsulated in centuries of legal tradition - the internet doesn't change that - people, in the end, need to be accountable for their actions.
I doubt she wants this state of affairs to change.
On the other hand, if your house gets burgled, you get a crime reference number and told to take it up with your insurance company.
So? Justice secretary has nothing to do with the police - justice is the courts.
Home secretary is ultimately in charge of the policing policy and in the UK they have no day to day influence over polices actions - the police are quite decentralised. Are you from the UK?
And in terms of the wider government they are supporting Israel's assault in Gaza directly with intelligence and weapon systems and are silent on the daily atrocities - that's hardly pro-palestinian.
I can see on the one side that police should only ever investigate crimes, not non-crimes. and that "a member of the public" is possibly committing a crime if they make false allegations.
on the other hand, we definitely need someone "official" who will investigate allegations, as a public-safety matter. for instance, if someone suddenly starts combing (hah) beauty-supply places for certain chemicals, it should attact some form of scrutiny.