That's a difference of degree, and not even that relevant. Either you have freedom of speech, or you don't.
Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):
- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)
- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.
- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down
- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.
So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...
Let's take your arguments and rephrase them as coming from Libya (or any "less democratic" country):
- Protesting is legal in XXX and happens regularly. You only have to get a permit to insure the safety of the people involved (same as in UK, I'd guess)
- The protesters are clearly destroying public and private property. There have been multiple instances of protesters attacking public buildings, and a (very well filmed) instance of protesters attacking innocent bystanders.
- Of course the internet will not be completely shut down. Only specific vectors, as needed. The police will decide what they are and how many to shut down
- The police only protects public property, and will always use violence as a last resort, and only as a response to violence - and we have clearly documented cases of violence from protesters.
So what's the difference? When it comes to laws meant to limit the power of the government, you can't count on the government applying them "in spirit" or reporting things truthfully and completely. It kindof defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If the people currently in charge would be trustworthy, you wouldn't really need any such laws...