A British national received 18 months imprisonment for posting two tweets that reached barely 33 viewers. Authorities labeled him a threat to security, and the court sided with the prosecution. Meanwhile, across the UK, individuals convicted of violent crimes receive lighter sentences. The situation grew more striking when examining judicial decisions from the prior year: a judge dismissed charges against a defendant caught possessing child exploitation materials, allowing him to walk free. The disparity raises uncomfortable questions about how different categories of speech and conduct are weighted in contemporary legal systems—particularly when online expression faces severe penalties while demonstrably dangerous offenders receive lenient treatment. This pattern has sparked broader conversations about judicial consistency and the boundaries of acceptable discourse.