6 ms·

The author tweeted the following (https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511 https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...)

The author tweeted the following (https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511 https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...): > To be entirely plain. > I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. > But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. > If that is a crime, send me back to jail. I think this is pretty clearly supporting Hamas. The "in the coming" bit gives him a bit of leeway, of course, since he's not actually saying he supported the October 7 massacre itself (though presumably he is saying he would support another one, if it were it to occur now?), but he certainly doesn't seem to be making the sort of "I support Palestinians, not Hamas" argument that you assume. Personally, as an American, I've been told by Europeans here that our attitudes towards free speech are bizarre, and that government has an important role to play in, ah, curating the information ecosystem. Despite that, I still believe that people like Murray should be perfectly free to argue for their views, however much I personally find them abhorrent.

alistairSH 3y ago
Ah, well that's a bit more clear. I don't agree with what he said. But, it also doesn't strike me as terrorism itself or outside the bounds of free speech (at least as we know it in the US, which isn't quite the same as in the UK). [I don't have a Twitter account, and try to avoid the site since access seems to be hit-or-miss since Musk took over]
- kmlx 3y ago
  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... > PROSCRIBED TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS > Proscription makes it a criminal offence to: > belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation; > arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and. > wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. i think he broke the first rule.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > i think he broke the first rule. He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1. But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
    - kmlx 3y ago
      > He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. i think the problem here is the medium. he didn't say he supported the terrorists in private to a friend. he posted it on twitter for everyone to see. i guess one could make a case that it's an invitation for support?

alistairSH 3y ago

Ah, well that's a bit more clear. I don't agree with what he said. But, it also doesn't strike me as terrorism itself or outside the bounds of free speech (at least as we know it in the US, which isn't quite the same as in the UK). [I don't have a Twitter account, and try to avoid the site since access seems to be hit-or-miss since Musk took over]

kmlx 3y ago
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266038/List_of_Proscribed_organisations.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... > PROSCRIBED TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS > Proscription makes it a criminal offence to: > belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation; > arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and. > wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. i think he broke the first rule.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > i think he broke the first rule. He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1. But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
  - kmlx 3y ago
    > He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. i think the problem here is the medium. he didn't say he supported the terrorists in private to a friend. he posted it on twitter for everyone to see. i guess one could make a case that it's an invitation for support?