IIRC the laws used in this prosecution were introduced when the UK was seeing a lot of ISIS support in certain segments of their population, and of course the various associated terrorist attacks.
There was a great outcry (led by Murdoch's media properties) that British citizens were tweeting pro-ISIS, anti-British sentiments but couldn't be charged under any law.
So the Tories changed that, and it was a popular change.
Of course, people always support laws that control "Them", but laws apply to all of us.
This kinda stuff is classic "Leopards ate my face, says lady who voted for the Face-eating Leopards Party".
Took me a bit to track down what the guy was charged with[3]: The relevant words of section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 [1] have not been changed since it was enacted and were directly taken from section 43 of the Telecommunication Act of 1984. [2] I don't think Murdoch and ISIS had anything to do with those, not sure about the Tories. Yet cautionary tales about electing face-eating leopards are never completely wrong, even when they are false ;-)
In this case it depends if people being charged for decrying the military are the same people who supported the laws under anti-ISIS justification. I suspect it's the other way around. "Leopards ate my neighbors face, says lady whose neighbor told her his face would be eaten by a leopard."
I'd guess the guy charged here was from Ireland on the anti union side, so also an enemy of UK. They were still killing and bombing each other there a few decades ago, so from the British perspective he would be the same as an ISIS sympathiser.
There was a great outcry (led by Murdoch's media properties) that British citizens were tweeting pro-ISIS, anti-British sentiments but couldn't be charged under any law.
So the Tories changed that, and it was a popular change.
Of course, people always support laws that control "Them", but laws apply to all of us.
This kinda stuff is classic "Leopards ate my face, says lady who voted for the Face-eating Leopards Party".