4 ms·

My question was more specific. I copied the quote from the Economist, a reliable publication. So, assuming the posting was as written, would it fall under the

• alephnerd 1y ago
  It would not if there wasn't proof that there was actual planning. That said, you would most likely be monitored by local and state law enforcement. A similar case happened in Central Illinois a couple years ago, where threats were posted but arrests were not made until the threats moved to actual action.
  • pcrh 1y ago
    In this case, the threats did move to action....
    • alephnerd 1y ago
      The person making the threat needs to be linked to the one taking the action (either via direct or indirect participation).
      • pcrh 1y ago
        In this case, she was found guilty of "sending a communication threatening death or serious harm". >Sweeney wrote: "It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6x105wgz5o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6x105wgz5o
        • crtasm 1y ago
          Also noted in the article: it was posted in the days after the riot and in response to seeing people cleaing up and repairing the damage.
          • pcrh 1y ago
            Connolley's message was posted at 8.30pm on the 29th July. One day before crowds attacked Mosques in Southport. Related disturbances continued until August 5th.
            • crtasm 1y ago
              Sweeney != Connolley. There's multiple people being discussed in this thread. My comment refers to the BBC article that pcrh quoted.
              • pcrh 1y ago
                Lucy Connolley is the person who said "set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards" on 29th July 2024.
        • alephnerd 1y ago
          Not in the US's case. A direct link would be needed. American jurisprudence on speech leans towards Free Speech Absolutism [0] due to jurisprudence from the 1970s-2000s, and the test for "clear and imminent danger" is extremely high. Even though the US and the rest of the Anglophone speak English, America jurisprudence is extremely distinct from the rest of the Anglophone (and vice versa), and IMO it doesn't make sense to compare one with the other due to these significant differences. For example, the UK dealt with the Troubles into the late 1990s, and the US never had a similar insurgency since the 1950s in Puerto Rico, so there is a hardening in NatSec laws in the UK compared to the US. This is why the US often leverages allied states to help with this kind of monitoring to sidestep some of the legal implications domestically. That said, I agree with your point to a certain extent, the issue is the US and other Anglophone countries have a different relation with speech and civil liberties. It doesn't make sense to compare the US with the UK or EU and vice versa. [0] - https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/free-speech-overrides https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/free-speech-o...
          • pcrh 1y ago
            How direct is direct enough? Connolley posted messages inciting racial violence, racial violence ensued. Was Connolley a major instigator of these riots? No. The judge's sentencing remarks are below, the key part being: >6. When you published those words you were well aware of how volatile the situation was. As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties. https://crimeline.co.uk/lucy-connolly-sentencing-remarks-17-october-2024/ https://crimeline.co.uk/lucy-connolly-sentencing-remarks-17-...