Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested
metro.co.uk
The woman accused of being first to spread the fake rumours about the Southport killer which sparked nationwide riots has been arrested.
Racist riots spread across the country after misinformation spread on social media claiming the fatal stabbing was carried out by Ali Al-Shakati, believed to be a fictitious name, a Muslim aslyum seeker who was on an MI6 watchlist.
A 55-year-old woman from Chester has now been arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred, and false communication. She remains in police custody.
While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth, a mother-of-three and the managing director of a clothing company.
This, I don't like. If you - the newspaper, the means of information - are not sure about a name you should really refrain from using it.
It would be not the first time people get their lives ruined by some careless journalist because of a namesake or just an error.
It's not that different from "spreading rumors".
That aside, in this case, it is probably a rumor from an inside source. Still. Not a fan.
Ironically, the reason for all this in the first place.
I've also said this before and I'll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.
Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don't think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.
*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.
Meanwhile here in Sweden, everyone's criminal record is public, and even available to search online. Unless the crime is something minor punished with a fine. It's really ridiculous, everything is publicly available online, like addresses, phone numbers, the cars or pets people own. Unless you have a protected identity, it's all available to everyone online. I tried to apply for a protected identity on account of being a public servant that is involved in making decisions many people very much dislike. But I couldn't provide a concrete threat so it was denied. It's like the system is still geared towards pre-internet times. The system itself in fact doxxes every resident in the country.
You're right but otherwise there are cases like child rapists that get a slap on the wrist and then go to represent a country at the Olympics
Yep. In Germany for example we don't name perpetrators at all, neither alleged nor convicted. Newspapers are not allowed to refer to them with anything but the first name plus first letter of the last name, or initials. The only exception is when someone dangerous is on the run and they need help from the public to ID him, in that case the name is released after an ethical review board from the police force decides so (it's mostly done on the spot without delay, but there is a procedure at the very least).
A general exception is made for persons of interest, be it celebrities, politicians or something. For general members of the public, nothing truly identifiable is released. Minors (generally below the age of 18, or people tried as minors, i.e. committed a crime while below 18 but only tried later) will not be named whatsoever; only their age and gender are released.
Race is never mentioned, unless it is a race-related hate crime.
We need something like this in my country. There's a newspaper here (il giornale) that always has headlines like
And so on. The last (foreigner madness) is almost a catchphrase for them, if you search for "la follia dello straniero" it comes out only results from that outlet
A crime is a crime and the criminal nationality is irrelevant, unless you need to push some agenda
Social media has been weaponized and will only get worse as media conglomerates congregate further.
They literally did the same thing she got arrested for.
They know it's her, they're just shielding themselves from libel claims. The same way they'll say "allegedly" until a conviction.
If they were trying to shield themselves they could have not dropped a name. This is different than saying allegedly about someone who was arrested and the name released.
True, but she also posted her lies publicly using her real name, so it isn't as though her name isn't already out there.
That's not true at all.
She literally made shit up out of nowhere with no evidence.
The website is posting actual credible information based on available evidence I.e. journalism.
Wrrrooonnngggg
But now internet people can harass her and the newspaper can make a little more money! /s
You know what I don’t give a flying fuck about? Her being a mother of three. Why is this sympathy baiting bullshit in an article about a woman who helped incite violent racist riots all over the country?
Maybe she should have thought about her kids before being a conservative.
Being a mother of three plays against her in my mind.
She didn't do this for her children but her own selfish reasons. Her children will suffer from her actions and therefore she is an irresponsible parent that does not consider the well being of her children.
She’s trying to ensure that her kids grow up in a more hateful and racist country, this is the legacy she’s trying to leave her children.
For me, the being a mother of three and that being mentioned just has descriptive value. It doesn't affect my judgement of her. It just helps me place who did this in the context of society and this anecdote, for whatever that matters - haters/bigots come in all shapes and sizes of course
It's also just commonly done in UK newspapers. Age and familial status is always given. Terry Pratchett made a joke about it in one of his books, though I can't remember the quote.
Edit: found one (not exactly the gag I wanted but CBA to look further)
They never use that argument for men.
"He's a father of 3"
They're always coming up with an excuse.
If her kids are young, a prison sentence of the mother would be pretty heavy on them. But the judge can take that into account if they want to.
But I guess this was just added to add more context about who the person is. More personal stories are more interesting to read.
Oh man, we need some of that shit in the US. Arrest these right wing media nut jobs and their Jewish laser bullshit.
They arrested the guy too. And I'm all for it.
what? what the fuck is going on here.
Context, fast. This is a context-robery!
Did they?
Looks like German runes
Careful what you wish for. Our freedom of speech is a pretty big thing we have. You want the guy who tweeted that Vance was a couch fucker to be thrown in prison or some shit?
Freedom of speech should not equal to the freedom of consequences. You should be able to say whatever you want, but when you lie with intent of causing harm, you should be accountable.
I'm okay with this phrase except for the word "intent". If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.
You should be punished for outcome, not intent. If you say something provably untrue that results in riots or murders, you should be held accountable for the outcomes of those statements. This is not that different from our current libel laws.
But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn't the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.
Yes my point was that "guilty mind" alone shouldn't be enough to charge you with a crime.
Agreed, but you also said :
And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.
Furthermore if outcomes are what gets punished, then what happens if people get hurt because you said something provably true? Poeple aren't rational at the worst of times.
Untrue does not automatically mean its a lie. For an untruth to be a lie it also must intend to deceive.
All lies are untrue but all untruths are not lies in the same way all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
But even untruths that intend to deceive aren't automatically lies, could be a joke though it's probably debatable with regards to joking. But then that's exactly why intent must be determined when considering the totality of any situation/incident
Something can be done for amusement that isn't a joke. And we all should be aware of the nature of Trolls at this point online
This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?
If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn't particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn't always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors... And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.
It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.
However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.
Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine... But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.
I'm not sure how to respond to this.
Reply was where it was intended.
Im clearly (to me anyway) responding to the conversation about outcomes and intents you quoted, but was reply to the conversation between you and the other person. Was trying to offer more support to your position since neither of you mentioned the facet i brought up. I may have rambled a bit but re reading it im not sure why you responded the way you did.
Im not that invested in this though so im just going leave it as i was agreeing with you, intent is a useful tool to use in any incident of judgment. Not one that needs to be used in the judgement, but needs to be considered before judgment
Calling a dude a couch fucker is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
And really, the worst thing the JD Vance rumors will do is cause a sales bump for Siemens couches by Republican males.
https://youtu.be/jTsPgiUoBKA?si=rl2wAayZfWxql8-E
When you spread outright lies about someone what sparks violence, it's a bit different, right? Or are you on the side of the woman who lied about Emmet Till and got him killed? Because if it was known she lied about the thing at the time, I'd say she should have been jailed the same as his killers.
If the hard right propaganda machine isn't shut down we will deal with the risk of a fascist takeover every four years for the rest of our country's existence.
Free speech is not absolute, and the 'fighting words' precedent certainly applies to fascist instigators.
We almost had to deal with the free speech limitations of KOSA. The power to limit free speech will eventually be abused.
We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.
The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.
Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press.... But will also send you to prison for publishing "LGBTQIA propaganda"
Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it's own.
Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren't nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It's on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.
If someone unironically advocated for that, then yes.
Lies aren't free speech.
Though without the Context I have a feeling that this was to show show how ridiculous the allegations of him are.
My understanding is that it was a made up name, so there is no "him". But also, she's claiming she heard it from someone else, so why is she the one getting in all the trouble, as opposed to everyone else who spread it around?
This is the first time i have seen someone with an Israeli flag on Lemmy. Congratulations.
I mean Rogan and Kyle Rittenhouse got canceled this week by trumpers for daring to not say trump is their favorite weirdo. Free speech is mostly a bludgeon that is currently only allowed to be wielded by in groups.
If you spread a knowingly false fact with the intent of causing riots, imo that's a good law. Nobody is going to riot over the couch fucking tweet.
There's a difference between getting canceled and getting in actual trouble by the government.
People complaining about you is not the same thing as being put in jail
"People complaining about you" is a weird way to say "death threats"
On the internet it tends to come with the territory unfortunately
When you are calling these fucking assholes weirdos, do you realize how fucking many kids have had to live through that stigma being slung at them unfairly and hurtfully?
Do you know why one of the worlds most loved and celebrated humans calls himself Weird Al Yankovich?
Yes im venting im sorry but this new tactic against the enemies of humanity is going to cause damage to people who are already and always have been vulnerable.
Shame on everyone who is jumping on this band wagon with absolutely no understanding of the consequences you are having.
I hope you can live with yourself for being part of the reason kids feel like they need to take a gun, go to school, and start shooting their bullies. While thats not the motivation of all these school shootings it was very much a big part of Columbine happening.
So go ahead and keep doing harm to a small group of people you didnt give enough thought to before you propagate this moniker for people are some of the worst people in history
As somebody who grew up being called weird for having head trauma as a kid, you missed the ball here. Kids have a way of cutting egos with even harmless words. Bullies should be weird. Assholes should be weird. As in they shouldn't be normalized. The word does have a meaning and its not inherently bad, but it can be with the correct intonation and facial expression
I'm not missing the ball thank you very much.
But you are obviously my point because you just restated everything i was talking about.
I couldn't agree with you more
Yeah the reality is if the courts start letting the government arrest people for speech, it's those going on about "woke mind viruses" who are gonna be the first to weaponize that. Without free speech, the left ceases to exist.
The left have been utterly excluded from free speech protections.
Yes, they have.
Hard to believe anyone would riot over JD Vance fucking a couch though
Only those too propagandized to realize it believe you actually have the right to free speech in the USA. You're guilty of something, all the time, in the USA. If they want to get you for something, they can. It's that simple. It's not hyperbole and it is the fascist playbook used in the USSR before as well.
You'll be hard pressed to find people in the US who get in trouble for criticism of the government or most other things. I can freely say the president sucks and cops are dirty, and no one will lift a finger in the US. I'm allowed to say this. There's a good many countries where you can't.
It's hyperbole but it's not out of the realm of possibility for that to change, given someone's litigious nature, to declare that activity to be treasonous.....
That's a tall hill to climb. It's literally been protected by the Supreme Court that you can fly a flag that says something like "Fuck Biden"(I think biden did a fairly good job, fyi). There are limitations to freedom of speech, but criticism and opinions aren't any of them.
I hope so. I really do. There seems to be interest in ignoring the constitution that they claim to protect......
ya, but that's republicans for the vast majority
Exactly
Obviously when it works out in my favor… I’m all for it.
But really, slander is slander. JD has plenty to make fun of that’s real. Just dig a little.
It's not slander if you can't prove it's not true.
Well, you’re technically correct. How does one prove they never fucked a couch?
You fucked a couch! Prove me wrong. 😛
I don't need to, I'm not accusing you of slander. 😉
Well, now I have a visual. 🤤
UK has freedom of speech, but there are limits. Been a Nazi is not covered.
As Chomsky said, "That's not freedom of speech"
In which case, perhaps unqualified "freedom of speech" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
(I appreciate that Chomsky's opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)
I believe it is. But if you don't that's your belief, but at least admit you therefore do not believe in freedom of speech.
I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I'm concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don't approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting "nonsense!" at Jack Straw. But I don't see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn't something I'd typically defend.
Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.
I don't trust anyone to evaluate that is the problem.
I think it's like the distinction between art and obscenity; it's not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I'd largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).
I agree in that its an inherently individual decision.
What makes you think this?
I don't think this was right
Nor this
Nor this
Experience. For what it's worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.
What do you mean?
Is libel freedom of speech?
I personally believe it is. Legally it isn't in the US. But luckily courts are pretty hesitant to actually prosecute it most of the time
I think you mean freeze peach
Wow. That would be a first that spreading misinformation actually has legal consequences.
Fox News FAFOed 787 million legal consequences.
Eh, the fact they're still at it means it was just the cost of doing business.
And that other conspiracist from infowars.
Quite the punishment. Imagine the inconvenience of having to hide hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now do newspapers next!
Don’t cut yourself on that edge
Also, how much is she to blame, as opposed to RT and Andrew Tate? This woman is a rich racist nobody. She wasn't the main person to spread the info. She isn't a media outlet, and she isn't required to fact check anything she heard (as she claims she heard it from someone else). What's next? Someone getting arrested for calling Vance a couch fucker? (USA still has some stuff going alright for itself)
She made up a racist lie about a child killer and expressed that violence should result. People rioted. It's called incitement to violence and it's illegal in the UK. No one rioted over the couch nonsense, and no one called for violence over the couch fucking. It's a bit different. Call a riot, go to jail. Your racist lying calls to violence aren't welcome in the UK, rich racist nobody.
She either made up a racist lie, or she just does a racist lie that she heard. Where's she calling for violence or telling people to riot?
Read the tweet. The logic goes A. If A then B. You're struggling with deducing B from that? You're forgetting that the rioters targeted asylum lawyers and hotels where asylum seekers are held. Where did the idea of last week's violence against asylum seekers come from? It came from her tweet.
I don't care what she says about what someone said in Southport. She was the one who posted the made up name for the child killer. She was the one who posted the made up claim about the killer being an asylum seeker, and she was the one who posted the made up conclusion of violence.
Her tweet itself is the incitement to violence. She's the one who made the announcement online. That there is the crime.
Don't do it, boys and girls. Don't encourage people to violence on the Internet. It's illegal in the UK. Your racist lies and support for violence aren't welcome in Great Britain and we'll very happily see you behind bars along with the far right nut jobs who heed your dog whistle. If this scares any of you personally, good. Not sorry. Don't post support for violence on social media.
They've already arrested people for making jokes, arrested a kid for insulting an Olympian, and arrested someone for tweeting "the only good soldier is a dead soldier". The UK government continues to be tyrannical and unethical.
Good, fuck Nazis.
Surprisingly balanced and civil discussions in these comments. Super proud to be here 💪 this would not happen elsewhere
She's a millionaire, so not a lot of support for her.
You actually raise a very interesting point.
Is this discussion so civilized because people here are civilized or just because it alligns with the majority of lemmys political views? Would it look any different if it went against wealthy people instead of immigrants?
to be fair, wealthy people aren't routinely discriminated against, they literally are some of the most powerful people.
This.
I wish that was really the case.
They really shouldn't be naming people like that without being sure of it. "Believing" isn't knowing and if it's not her, then she could be in for a lot harassment online and offline.
The irony of naming someone as the "woman shares name of man she believes was the one arrested for crime before the police released the name" before the police release the name is incredibly ridiculous.
It's "Metro" it's a free newspaper that's available on every bus in the UK owned by the same people as the infamous paper: the Daily Mail. It has the same low-quality journalism but with the opposite spin (centre-left).
I wouldn't trust those two papers to wipe my arse clean because there'd be more shit smeared onto my cheeks!
They're confident enough that they feel they won't get a libel suit and that has to count for something, even if it is a rag because honestly if they have the name wrong I'd love to be that woman: Instant mortgage paid off and at least one full board holiday to Magaluf.
I heard someone say it was that khannie fella from gemmyverse or something.
Social media is a huge fucking problem. Maybe not as serious as climate change, but people are dying because of a few bad faith actors. Something needs to be done but I'm not sure what.
This is just the current tech's version of a timeless problem, though. People have always been able to just say shit and cause problems because others believed them.
Examples:
Emmett Till was lynched back in the 1950s due to a lying white woman, becoming an iconic part of the civil rights movement.
In the late 1930s, the War of the Worlds story freaked a bunch of people out when it was first broadcast.
In 1897, Mark Twain's death was falsely reported enough that he publicly commented about it.
There's also the Great Moon Hoax in 1835.
William Anderton is a famous example of fake news from the 1700s.
we've even got fake news in ancient Rome involving Octavian, Marc Antony, and Cleopatra.
People will always be doing this dumb shit, whether it's a town crier, a printing press, or a social media site.
The key is to exercise critical thinking and promote its use to everyone.
I think it's also regulation and a legal system. Anarchy doesn't work. It's a Tragedy Of The Commons problem. It's always ruined by a few ass holes. The Commons need a mechanism to weed itself. I.e. Rules and enforcement of those rules.
Problem is Xitter is a centralized closed monopoly thing owned by a crazy near trillionaire. The Commons has no control of it. It's a diseased setup.
Fun fact, the tragedy of the commons is a fictitious construct invented by British nobility to justify their taking ownership of commonly held land
It has many appliances and no doubt many names. But it's easy to work out on first principals. Without a system of enforced rules, ass holes take over and ruin it for everyone (including themselves). Places without law and order are a mess and normally end up with laws set by war/drug lord. Until they are murdered and the next one takes over.
As much as this behavior is appalling, blaming it on one individual is absurd. Social networks provide incentives to lie and stir people up, it can even be profitable. As long as that's the reality, there will be lies that cause riots.
Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.
bingo. change has to start somewhere.
I look at it the way I look at drunk driving. If you drink and drive, most of the time you're going to be fine. You're not going to get in an accident, and you're not going to get caught. But what you're doing is still dangerous and wrong.
If you do get caught because you were swerving all over the road and a cop saw you, you're going to be in some shit, but it probably won't ruin your life. If you cross the divider into oncoming traffic and obliterate a family in a minivan, on the other hand, once you're out of the hospital you should be dragged to court and then to prison for what you actually did.
Deliberately spreading misinformation online is like driving drunk. You're going to get away with it 99% of the time, and nothing major will actually come from the lies you spread specifically. However, if you're so reckless with your lies that you cross that metaphorical divider and start a series of escalating race riots that do demonstrable damage, then you get to suffer the consequences for what you've done.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But that is why, if they catch you, and you haven't obliterated a family, you still catch heat.
This lying bitch isn't likely to catch nearly enough to deter future drunk driving at the keyboard. When we catch you driving drunk you lose your fucking license.
You don't think we should blame the one person who made up the lie and sparked racist riots across the country?
One thing that isn't really touched on because it never got published is that Spofforth has been an active organizer for the far right since 2020. Since then she has been active in anti Drag Queen Story Hour harrasment and targeting hotels. Another example is Yorkshire Rose (Amanda Smith) who has been doing the exact same but to a larger extent.
My main concern is that these fascist agitators have been placed into prisons with people of colour and leftwing activists for an extended period of time.
I hope all people suffereing from the rampage by this mob will sue this woman for damages.
I would like to suggest that Rwanda would be an appropriate place to serve her sentence.
lol. We’re short of prison space so get the deal with Rwanda for immigrants changed to be criminals instead.
Good. She deserves it.
Karens been lying fr centuries but becuase middle aged white woman can do no wrong, many people got killed or imprisoned over it.
Only now has society admitted that they lying a lot for stupid reasons like racism or just BC fuck you due to camera phones...
Similar to the story with cops. About time botha team held accountable for exploiting the system.
::: spoiler Metro UK - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Metro UK:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/woman-first-shared-fake-southport-suspect-rumour-sparked-riots-arrested-21389346/
https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/riots-last-night-25-000-counter-protesters-give-country-hope-21379938/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Fine. You get an upvote for self improvement and being useful for once… but I’m still going to be bitchy about it 😊
Everyone here who's cheering this on is missing the point.
Does this person and the other agitators, suck? Yes. Are they vile? Yes.
But putting aside the morality of the UK's lack of free speech, the press and politicians, including the current Labour administration are you using these arrests to pretend that they had no culpability.
Don't think this begins and ends with the Daily Mail and Farage. Starmer made his bones on being anti immigrant just the same, including giving speeches about this shit in the last few weeks.
So if you really do believe in the UK's police state approach to speech for commoners, than at least taken to account that the very rags you're reading while they clutch their pearls, and you all cheer, are in fact the original culprits and exponentially more guilty than any dipshits they've arrested, or will arrest.
It's almost like you don't comprehend the situation any more than you were able to understand what I actually said.
The situation has been building for a couple of decades, but it was created almost entirely by politicians and the media. The same ones who are now pearl clutching, including Starmer.
The same politicians and media outlets who are writing with indignation and feigned horror at the "violent mobs", will suffer no consequence, especially with the attitude you just expressed.
Because, at least in my view, being part of the media class or a politician shouldn't protect you from the legal consequences of fomenting nationwide riots. Clearly you feel differently.
So yeah, this lady and those like her are shit buckets. I genuinely don't care what happens to them, but I do care that people like you are pretending that they are the start and the end of this problem, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Oh and P.S., it's already a police state. Look no further than their treatment of Muslims the past two decades, including stripping citizenship and imprisoning without trial, or that they're the most surveilled country on earth.... The fact that you think this is a new, or yet to come development, speak volumes.
You say I didn't comprehend you, but in fact what happened was that I understood you and disagreed. Disagreeing with you does not equate misunderstanding you. You should try to clear those two up in your mind.
Still trying to blame Starmer for this loses you such a lot of credibility.
There's nothing in what I said that says politicians should be exempt. Nothing. I even said Farage next please. I didn't say that she is the start and the end of the problem. But inciting riots should send you to prison. famous or not. Especially if famous. The bad news in this is that Farage isn't in a cell and GB News for some inexplicable reason still has a licence to broadcast.
By police state you seem to mean state with a lot of bad police. I mean more totalitarian states like North Korea. You're BoTh SiDESing hard there. Let me be clear that I think that there are a lot of problems with racism in the UK police force, partly because of what's been emphasised over the last while by the Conservatives and partly because there's a lot of old racism that's being protected, but at least you don't get shot in the UK by the police for being black behind the wheel of a nice car.
Over surveillance, there's some cultural assumptions you seem to think are universal but aren't. Americans think it's fine to let insurance companies choose who lives and dies and take everything you ever owned if you commit the crime of having cancer, Brits think it's fine to let the state watch you on CCTV, intercept your tweets and put you in prison if you plan terrorism. Americans sometimes act like freedom of speech is top of the human rights scale whereas British folk might well put the right to live in peace higher than the right to say absolutely anything. British people think that people should be allowed (by the state) to wear whatever they like as long as it covers what underwear normally covers whereas many Iranians think women should go to prison if you can see more than their eyes. Cultures are different. So we might be heavily surveilled but we don't feel as oppressed by that as Americans would, and we see state intervention as genuinely good in some places, like having consumer protections against corporate nastiness and free healthcare and stuff.
Oh my God.... You really have no clue what you're talking about, which I suspected earlier, but that reply is almost cringe-worthy.
You don't understand or have any depth of knowledge of British politics and media, which is pretty clear.
You don't even know what a police state is.....
Wait.... Are you really basing all of your views and analysis off of British media coverage...?
I wonder if you're able to disagree with me on some other level than just insulting me? You didn't really raise any points of substance other than that I'm stupid and ill informed, and you didn't address any of the things I said except to dismiss them all in general without any reasoning, so I'm at a bit of a loss for anything factual to discuss with you here, sorry.
They don't "lack free speech", they're more "free of hate speech" and a more modern society because of it
They've already arrested people for making jokes, arrested a kid for insulting an Olympian, and arrested someone for tweeting "the only good soldier is a dead soldier". The UK government continues to be tyrannical and unethical.
Yes, mistakes are made, and also many more justified and deserved convictions are made.
And the fact that those three examples are the type reported on ad nauseum by gutter tabloid newspapers gives a hint as to your preferred choice of sources
And what happens when mistakes are made? They are defended by the tyrannical government.
It's like, "Yeah we falsely execute 10% of people, we don't apologize to their families or anything, but it's okay- many more people get what they deserve"
What? If I read news(not often) it's usually, AP, Reuters, Reason, or something from Yahoo news.
Maybe it's just that those are the most widely published cases of abuse so it's easy when you're looking for examples? But yeah personal attacks are good too.
Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie. I do not want to follow the example being set in Europe. This is the road that leads to authoritarian rule. Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion. When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal? Will different truths exist in red and blue states? City and rural? No thank you.
real big "why can't I yell fire in this building?" vibes.
And yet, it's there. Just as it is in defamation law.
A jury of your peers and the Public Order Act 1986.
The US has free speech. Apart from all the exceptions it carves out and designates not protected speech, including but not limited to incitement, threats and harassment, sedition, and obscenity. Obscenity in particular was famously 'defined' for a while as "I know it when I see it". So why draw the line at hate speech?
Is it not a weird state of affairs when saying "X is a paedo" is legally actionable but saying "trans people are all paedos and X is trans" isn't, even week when X's house gets burned down either way?
Sure, the UK parliament could pass a law saying criticising the prime minister is now illegal. The courts will inevitably issue a declaration of incompatibility with human rights law, but the government, in theory, could ignore it. If the public swallows it. But there's nothing really stopping that happening in the US either. Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the president, and since the president gets to pick the judges, it could almost certainly come under the sedition exception to the first amendment if the president really wanted it to pass. If the public swallows it.
And that's what it comes down to at the end of the day. Whether or not the public swallows it. For all the US right wing likes to harp on about freeze peach that sure doesn't seem to apply if you want to say something bad about America or use the word cisgender. Do you really think the American public is much less likely to support authoritarianism than the British public?
why do people pretend there isn't or shouldn't be any human element in legal situations? who decides what's free speech or a lie? how is this even a question? who decides what's a murder or self defense? who decides what's assault or not?
this is why there's a court system. you can't automate law.
Not defending this woman, but as an American, the thought of being arrested for lying on the internet (or repeating a rumor, as she claims) seems insane.
Do u guys also yell fire in crowded theatres?
I get what you're saying, but I really expected the post to be something more direct, like a specific threat.
I don't think anyone would be arrested here for saying "people are going to go crazy if X turns out to be true".
It would have to be more like "Let's burn things down!" or "Somebody should take care of (blank)".
That's the thing about dog-whistles.
The defence you posit is the same as a politician chosing words carefully to imply one thing, while technically not lying: for aome reason they think that's a defence, but were a six-year-old try it they'd be straight off to the naughty step.
She lit a fire which was fanned by agents provocateurs from outside the country (ie, Farrage and Yaxley-Lennon). The useful idiots picked it up and rioted with it.
Farage is a Member of Parliament. He is not outside the country.
Was at the time (as per usual).
Sure I guess if there's a fire, or at least believe there's a fire. Hard to figure out who's deliberately lying to start shit, and who's just gullible and vocal on social media.
“As a German, I find myself groaning when I see this discussion come up. Conspiracy theorists are not rational. If fascists could be swayed by facts and reason, they would not believe what even the most minor bit of fact checking would disprove. Allowing them to spew their nonsense freely or join a coalition won't disabuse them of their notions; it will help them seek and build echo-chambers and become further radicalized.We see the echo chamber effect on every online platform. Whether or not the holocaust happened, for example, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Making up your own facts is called lying. And when your lies are so malicious and harmful that they actually pose a threat to other people or the nation itself, then yes, that should absolutely be punishable. It's no different than slander or libel.
“What value is there to allowing holocaust denial? Serious question. And I don't mean appealing to the slippery slope of how it leads to other worse prohibitions. There's a lot of arguing for Free Speech for its own sake - that Free Speech is the highest virtue in and of itself that must never, ever be compromised, for any reason, and that this should be self-evident. But I ask, what's the harm in not allowing holocaust denial, specifically? What is the benefit in allowing it? There is none. Nothing good will ever come out of someone spewing holocaust denial. Ever. You won't get a thoughtful debate beneficial to both parties. They're wrong, simple as that. The "best" outcome you'll get out of it is that you can convince a denier or someone on the fence that they're wrong. Great. The best outcome involves suppressing it. There are, however, a hell of a lot potentially bad consequences in that their stupidity can infect others and shift the Overton window their way.
“The reason that the majority of modern Germans look at the Nazi flag and feel nothing but revulsion whereas a sizable portion of US southerners actually fly the confederate flag and defend it (Heritage, not hate, or It was about states' rights, not slavery, or Slaves weren't treated so bad) is that Germans were forbidden from telling each other comforting lies about their past."
— quote I stole from unknown redditor
That's a very well written quote that makes a good point.
Conspiracy theorists form echo-chambers to repeat their ridiculous claims amongst themselves and it poses a challenge to the rest of us to figure out how to prevent this without compromising our own values.
The sentiment I was trying to communicate is that involving the police as enforcers of truth on the internet is simply a foreign concept to me as an American. It feels heavy handed and I think carries an obvious risk.
It's easy to cheer on when it's happening to someone we dislike, like the racist lady in question, but I think it's important to take a step back and make sure it truly aligns with our basic principles of freedom.
No, it's never OK to incite violence. The crime here isn't lying on the internet, it's spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.
...and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn't an incitement to violence, she isn't even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying "if this is the truth".
The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.
She was the first to post the incendiary racist lie, and she posted it claiming it should result in violence. I think Farage and Tate should also be charged for amplifying it (but Tate isn't in the country).
You think that the people who rioted should go to prison but not the woman who started the ball rolling and first suggested the rioting online? Punish the footmen but not the ringleaders? Your morality is screwy.
Words can have power. Don't use them to start violence in the streets of the UK. We'll put you behind bars for that and not be sorry.
Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?
If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.
Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.
Far right nut jobs rioting for political purposes isn't the same as the whole country going crazy. It's not society in general that's fucked up and needs a reality check, it's the far right nut jobs. (Far, far more people turned up for the Hope not Hate counter protests, which were peaceful.)
I think this is an absurdly naïve reading of the tweet in which she quite clearly expresses that violence is the inevitable result of the wrong immigration status of the suspect. It's very clearly a lie designed to stoke anger and foment violence. Which it did. Far right nut jobs go to prison for rioting. Far right nut jobs that incite the violence go to prison. Good.
She's not a random civilian, she's the one at the start of the chain of events.
"saying something inconvenient" and calling for violence on a false racist narrative are not morally equivalent. You're not winning the moral argument by equating them.
Please try not to use words like "inconvenient" in a discussion about far right street violence. It's a bit insensitive and comes across as trivialising the issue.
You keep dodging my question. You claim that the poster knew that this was false and intended to incite violence, can you cite any external proof for this at all or is it just a hunch?
Occam's razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake by the poster originating from hearsay or... a hunch (something that happens thousands of times) rather than some conspiracy to incite riots and violence.
You've addressed a total of zero points I raised. It's like I didn't say them.
Again with the absurd naivety. She initiated it. The calls for riots. With her words. This wasn't an accidental brush across the keyboard, and it's illegal in UK law to do that.
Are you her lawyer?! No. What a strange question. Why the sudden asymmetry in standards of proof between us? Did you quote any external evidence for any of your opinions? Is this a court of law or an internet discussion? Weird.
I addressed a total of one.
The original question that you still haven't adressed, probably because you can't. Thing is, the rest of your arguments are moot if there is no intent. You assume she is malicious, but she very well mightn't have been, and even if she was it'll be difficult to prove.
"All hell will break loose" really isn't an incitement to violence. It might mean political scandal, flame wars on social media, protests etc., none of which are riots.
If anything, what I see is politicians wanting somebody to blame for their own mistakes, a convenient scapegoat, one person who they can pin the blame on instead of taking responsibility.
She wasn't anywhere near the "start" of this, merely one (potentially innocent) link in a chain of events starting years prior with gross political mismanagement.
You keep demanding proof of me and never proving anything at all that you claim.
If proof is important for internet debates, where's your proof that she wasn't anywhere near the start of this batch of far right violence? That's a bold unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the police. Where's your proof that the police falsely claimed that they traced online calls for violence following the child murders back to her? That's an even bolder unsubstantiated claim. You claim she's a political scapegoat. Where's your proof that there was political interference in her arrest? That's another bold unsubstantiated claim.
Incitement to violence is a crime in the UK. I'm not sure that you're entirely clear on what incitement is. She's subject to UK law. I hope she goes to prison for it. The more people know they can go to prison for this shit the less rioting we'll have.
Don't write your race hate on the internet and don't invent a lie about child murders and call for violence. If the far right nut jobs heed your call, the police will correctly come for you.
Actions should have consequences. Her lie set of at least a week of needless chaos and destruction. It gave racist shit-heads an excuse (in their minds at least) to vandalize property, attack police and counter-protesters, and terrorize innocent people.
If she was the person who originated this lie then I hope they throw the book at her. If she just publicized a lie she heard from elsewhere she should still be punished, but probably not as much.
Freedom of speech should not equate to impunity for spreading egregious lies and hate-mongering. We should be coming down harder on people here in America who deliberately spread lies with bad faith intentions. Skin color, religion, etc should have any sway in when we apply such actions and when we don't.
ETA: I didn't downvote you, by the way. You're entitled to your opinion, and I feel like your point is a gateway to deeper discussion.
I mean, you're pointing the finger at the spark while ignoring the barrels of fuel stored in dangerous conditions. These people WANTED to riot, if she hadn't given them the reason, they'd have found another soon.
Yeah, and the rioters who were caught are in police custody. But the person going in the fuel depot with the lit match absolutely is not innocent of causing the inferno.
I appreciate the discussion. I knew this wouldn't be a popular take and almost deleted it before commenting.
Again, I think spreading lies on the internet is an appalling thing to do, but I just wanted to share my disbelief that someone could be arrested for it. Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone's grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.
I know it's tempting to want bad things to happen to people we don't like, but I think situations like this are a test of our ethics and values.
How is it really different from starting a white supremacy group and calling to 'expel immigrants' in posters around a city? The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online. Do we really need to allow that to be okay?
I'd consider another big difference that one was a tweet with misinformation and the other is a call to action to "expel" people. The tweet is appalling but hardly terrorism.
Why? It was obviously a lie to rile people up. Why shouldn't it be considered cyber terrorism?
If only. Wouldn't that be fucking grand.
The amount of harm and loss of live those stupid things lead to has no place in society and people should be held responsible for it.
Quite a dystopian world you're pining for.
Damn a world where I'm free from baseless hate being openly spread.
I think the problem is - who decides what speech qualifies and is arrestable?
What if it's Trump? Or congressional Republicans?
What if they claim that talking negative about Trump is hate speech and is arrestable? Or saying Vance fucks couches?
I take it that you can see a distinction between "Vance fucks couches" and "burn those people in their hotel". They are not the same thing.
If the distinction is hard to determine - that's why there's a judicial process.
Except no one said "burn those people in their hotel".
That's kind of the point being made by all of the dissenters in this thread.
Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.
Do you have a source for her saying that? I haven't heard any reports that she did.
It's a paraphrase. Read the tweet, not as if you're her defence lawyer, but ask yourself if a reasonable person would interpret it as a racist argument that violence was justified.
It doesn't sound even remotely like what her tweet said. That's not a paraphrase.
If you're/they're going to use quotes of things to compare whether each should be free speech, your quote should at least resemble the actual speech used.
This isn't the usa and she doesn't have the absolute right to say anything she likes, and if her tweet leads to rioting, she's guilty of inciting violence. Where do you think the false idea that the child murderer was an asylum seeker and violence should happen as a result came from, and what makes you think you're a better investigator than the British police?
Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.
I'm on your side. Without a direct call to action that breaks some laws, the idea that you can be arrested for "false communication" is straight up dystopian to me.
She literally ended with "If this is true"
There's a logical reasoning thing called modus ponens (it has a latin name because it's not exactly new). It goes
A. If A then B.
Hence B.
That's exactly how she called for all hell to break loose. You can't claim that you didn't mean B when you say "A. If A then B." It's just that A was false and "If A then B" was also false. Nevertheless, a lie-ridden far right call to violence over the murder of innocent children is what it was, and it was heeded by the far right nut jobs who rioted over the issue, targetting the immigration lawyers that had nothing to do with the deaths of the children until she posted the lie. She incited violence. Jail. Good riddance.
Keep your far right racist lying incitements to violence to yourselves, or you'll end up in prison, fascists! You're not welcome in the UK and you never have been. Thousands of ordinary people counter protested against hundreds of racist agitators. Good.
But she was saying if A. As in, questioning A...
No she wasn't. She already unequivocally stated A.
My friend has a UK driver's licence.
If she has a UK driver's licence, she must be at least 17.
Now, can you honestly claim I'm sceptical about whether she has a driver's licence or whether she's over 16?
Please Google modus ponens before coming back again. She even used it in the classical form.
"If that's true" pretty clearly implies skepticism. She wasn't stating a theorem. She was conversing.
You're not prepared to change your mind, you'd rather contradict literally thousands of years of logical thinking. 2+2=3. Got it. I really really wasted my time talking to you.
I read what I read. I'm not saying it's definitely what she meant, but if it's how I interpreted it, it may be what she meant. Language after all is largely fluid, and not a mathematical equation. But sure, just insult me instead.
OK, you're a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country and you won't listen to reason and literally deny logic.
Your reasoning is that that is the phrasing in formal logic. My point is how people converse doesn't necessarily follow formal logic. So that may not be what she meant. I can't say she definitely meant what I said- but that is the impression I got. And as I said if it's how I as a fluent English speaker interpreted it, then it may also be how she meant it.
You missed this bit:
you’re a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country
And I think I know why you're spending the best part of a week online defending racist liars.
The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.
How about we get both sides of the argument to meet in a big large room, we can present the facts of what happened, and allow trained professionals and/or a selection of her peers to judge what should be punished on a case by case basis?
Nah sounds ridiculous, let’s just do nothing.
I don't think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.
There's unpopular speech and there's speech that starts nationwide riots. I don't get how you're confusing them.
I'm not confusing them. But I'm also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.
It's safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.
They're not being punished for disagreeing with the government - that was when the conservative government made it illegal to protest climate change. No, they're being punished for causing violence. It's not that the opinion is wrong, it's that the far right lies caused far right rioting. I don't know why anyone thinks that should be consequence free. It's crazy that you would think it should be allowed.
It's not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.
Well I think the state should have the power to jail people for starting nationwide riots. I don't see why you don't. It's weird. You think the rioters should go to jail but the ones that kicked it off shouldn't? Really odd.
It's less about thinking she shouldn't be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn't have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
The UK doesn't have a written constitution. A principal is that no Parliament can bind its successor. The state can give itself whatever powers it likes. The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest, which rather goes against "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." The people who went to prison for saying we'd better not kill the planet went uncommented by you, but this woman triggering a sequence of riots is where you draw the line?
No, in the UK there is no absolute and overriding right to say anything. If you incite violence, you can be sent to prison. Do you not have laws about libel? Is that not the state punishing people for speech? Why is it worse in the USA to say a nasty and untrue thing about a celebrity than to say a nasty and untrue thing that triggers riots? Is Trump OK to call for insurrection because it was only words? I think you may be overvaluing the freedom to cause problems with words and underestimating the extent to which you can get in trouble for it in America.
I've never heard a "Free speech absolutist" with good motives. I'm very much not one. The state stopping bad things from happening is a good thing, no?
I think you're spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson's dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.
If you lie and say I stabbed 3 children, you open yourself to libel.
But if you do it for a fake person and it starts riots, what should happen? There are no damages to an individual like libel, instead it's for society as a whole. So do nothing when the outcome is worse? Seems backward.
I think the difference is whether there's a specific threat or call to action. "If (blank) is true, (blank) will likely happen" is a sentiment I see online frequently, even here.
I would consider that different than, for example, Trump instructing a mob of people to "march on the capital" on January 6th. That's a call to action that resulted in deaths.
This lady sounds like someone's racist mom who shared misinformation on social media and her post went viral. She deserves to be shunned, but I don't think jail is the right answer.
I don’t think that’s quite right, because there’s no instruction associated with spreading lies about someone. You don’t have to say “you should attack this person based on this [random lie]” to be guilty of libel. The lie itself causes the bad consequences that now make you guilty.
The Picard Maneuver is a the owner and organiser of a secret pedo ring operated by Mormons in Utah.
If this is true (wink wink), you better hide the entrance to your secret basement.
...
Imagine if intentionally sending crazy people on crazy missions to intentionally cause harm wasn't OK.
I understand the point you're making, but the fact that you are able to type this with full confidence that cops aren't going to show up at your door tomorrow is my point.
Lying is wrong, but the police arresting someone for repeating/creating a made up name of a murderer on twitter is bizarre to me.
(edit: for clarity, because she might have been the one who made up the fake name)
did she repeat it? or was she the source?
The article implies she was the sources and thus, despite her claims, made it up
I wouldn't be surprised if she's the one who made it up.
And as a result, rioting across the UK. Why shouldn't the police turn up and arrest the person who started the national violence?
Trump started insurrection, but it was only words so he's innocent? No he's not. He should be (a) in jail and (b) barred from standing for president, as per the constitution.
Trump riled up a mob and told them to march on the capital. He absolutely should be in jail for that.
This random racist lady on the internet basically said "If [lie that she either repeated or made up] is true, I bet people are going to be mad!" and was arrested.
My point is that I see nonsense like that posted everywhere in the aftermath of tragedies, and I don't think all of those redditors/lemmings/etc are criminals either. Trolls, escalators, maybe astroturfers, but not criminals. It's just a bit of a culture shock to me to see someone arrested for it.
Trump only said they were going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. But we know what happened.
It's a culture shock that it's illegal to say certain things in the UK, but I suspect that you're used to all manner of evil being justified as freedom of speech because for some reason it plays well as a justification in North America. You should have freedom of religion, but not if your freedom involves physical harm to others. Same for speech. You should have freedom of speech, but not if your speech causes physical harm to others.
Spreading outrageous lies that result in harassment and violence is clearly not something to tolerate.
The US is not a good example to bring up if you want to argue it is fine to allow it.
Allowing others' speech is the default. The ethical question is where we draw the line in silencing or punishing someone's speech.
In the US, the line would generally be specific threats or calls for violence. Someone being hateful or spreading awful rumors online could be a lawsuit by the wronged party, but you aren't going to have cops show up at your door with handcuffs.
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.
Yes it is.
It's morally wrong, but people who lie on the internet are not criminals.
It absolutely isn't.
If a sales person sells you a faulty car claiming it works, it's a fraud, not a freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech covers opinions and ideas, not factual lies.
People's brains fall out of their heads on this one hey? Like wtf, you're actually responsible for what you say seems pretty basic. Nobody is arguing for prosecuting anyone who expresses opinions, or what they earnestly believe to be true and communicate in good faith. Just, if you make shit up and people get hurt well then, you did that hey.
Why? If you spreaded false rumor which nearly resulted in a couple hundred people being burned alive, you 100% should be arrested. Words have consequences.
The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.
If her tweet hadn't gone viral, would it have still been a crime? That's an unsettling way to determine whether someone is a criminal who needs to be locked up or not.
You appear somehow ignorant how the law works. It is about adult humans being able to predict consequences of their actions.
If you are travelling at speed (but still below the speed limit) on an icy road and you kill someone, you go to prison for a long time as you should be able to predict you may kill someone.
If you shoot a projectile and it goes beyond the boundaries of your land, you may end up in jail again - you should be able to predict the projectile may go beyond the boundary.
She should have been able to predict the consequences of her spreading lies.
Adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I think that predictability is the crux of the surprise about her being charged. I don't think I could say anything to start national riots. Maybe that isn't true, but I would never assume that would be the consequences of one of my tweets. Who is this woman that she should have expected she had that kind of influence?
You're basically saying
And there's a difference in magnitude in most crimes too. Like if you steal a grape from a supermarket as you do your weekly shop, that's very different to stealing an entire chicken, which is also different to stealing a TV.
My point was more that we're looking at the situation in hindsight and applying knowledge that she didn't have to her intent.
This woman's action (typing the tweet) ended at the time she hit send, and we should determine if we think that alone is criminal.
Look up the original judgement on the Maya Forstater tribunal. "In a functioning democracy, some beliefs are not worthy of respect," or words to that effect. If you think inciting racist riots shouldn't be criminal, then write to your MP about it.
The first amendment rights don't necessarily protect you from the consequences of speech.
Speech can facilitate crime, e.g. libel and slander.
As an American, I wish out right lying and libel was more prevalently an arrestable offense.
I believe you lied, I will now report you to the police. Even if it's not true it'll still make your life miserable
There are different levels of lying though aren't there. This woman had a history of stirring trouble, and if the motive AND outcome of this lie were to stir up trouble on as large a scale as possible, then to not oppose this behaviour would be to invite more unrest.
The whole country just rioted based on a complete fabrication; a racist lie, cynically fabricated for the purpose of provocation. That needs to be addressed, and if she is the provocateur then she needs to be punished, because that type of behaviour is evidently destructive to society.
Whereas the true insanity is to let people get away with openly inciting race hate which leads to life threatening real-world consequences for the people on the receiving end of the lies.
Absolute free speech is the refuge of those without the common sense and maturity to realise it has led to deaths. It is entirely appropriate to legislate for those who want, or encourage, life threatening harm to come to others.
I suggest you look into what Chomsky has said on it
The UK doesn't have the same freedom of speech as in the US. You're much more accountable for what you say. If you're inciting violence, intentionally or unintentionally, you should be held to account.
I'm not suggesting we start imprisoning people for resharing misinformation, but sometimes people need a refresher on how to think critically instead of mindlessly reposting because of an emotional reaction. Hopefully that's what she gets.