6 ms·

> How many of those 30 were for "online posts" (and of which nature - Lucy Connolly is a favourite example cited by the likes of Vance, but she was arrested for

> How many of those 30 were for "online posts" (and of which nature - Lucy Connolly is a favourite example cited by the likes of Vance, but she was arrested for trying to stir up racial tension when there were already race riots going on)? Who can tell, because the article didn't seem to bother asking. I googled Lucy Connolly out of curiosity. It indeed appears that she got 31 month of jail for a single tweet? You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"?

basisword 1y ago
The fact it was a "single tweet" is completely irrelevant. It's the content of the tweet which is relevant.
tolien 1y ago
> You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previously admitted intending to stir up racial hatred. If you plead guilty to a charge, there's not much defense left. The offence she admitted to doesn't even take account of whether it's committed online - it's law that was passed in 1986. An aggravating factor that led to the sentence she got was that she had in fact posted multiple times in the same sort of way. Details of her appealing the sentence as excessive, rejected by the appeals court https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...
- alexey-salmin 1y ago
  So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not, or whether they agree or disagree with her political position.
  - tolien 1y ago
    I wasn't saying the context I gave was an exhaustive list, I was suggesting that having Googled her name and maybe skimmed a couple of news articles, you might need to do some more reading before forming too much of an opinion. > She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. Your contention seems to be that incitement shouldn't be an offence? That's at odds with legal systems all over the world, including the US, where Brandenburg v Ohio [0] holds that if inflammatory speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" that is an exception to the First Amendment and can be prosecuted, which seems to be at odds with "regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not". The original point of my first post in this thread was that lumping together arrests for stalking, incitement to violence and other forms of harassment to produce a big scary number makes the argument seem utterly dishonest. The fact that so many "free speech proponents" fixate on one example when, if the stated number is true, there should be thousands of examples every year is a good demonstration of that. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
    - yesco 1y ago
      > That's at odds with legal systems all over the world, including the US Not true. The US has a much higher bar for prosecuting speech than the UK. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - 395 U.S. 444 - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107965/brandenburg-v-ohio/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107965/brandenburg-v-o... - Speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" - AND "likely to incite or produce such action" - General statements like "burn them all" typically fail both prongs The "imminent" requirement is key. Connolly's Facebook post lacked: - Specific targets or locations - Timeframe for action - Direct instructions to specific individuals - Any indication people were prepared to act on her words immediately Here are cases with far more explicit threats that were protected: United States v. Bagdasarian (2009) - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/221261/united-states-v-bagdasarian/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/221261/united-states-v... - Citation: 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) - Posted that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head" with racial slurs - Result: Conviction reversed as crude political statement, not true threat United States v. Turner (2013) - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/904120/united-states-v-turner/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/904120/united-states-v... - Citation: 720 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2013) - Posted that three federal judges "deserve to die" with their photos and addresses - Result: Conviction overturned as protected political hyperbole Connolly's "set fire to all the hotels" would likely be viewed as angry hyperbole in the United States, not meeting Brandenburg's strict standard. The distinction: The US prosecutes actual incitement (directing a mob to attack a building RIGHT NOW). The UK prosecutes offensive speech that merely might inspire someone, somewhere, someday. Your Brandenburg citation actually proves this difference rather than refutes it. You want thousands of examples? Check Twitter during any US political crisis - they're not prosecuted precisely because Brandenburg protects them.
immibis 1y ago
If I post "I'm going to kill the president, at $location tomorrow at $time" and I get arrested, was I arrested for "an online post", or was I arrested for "threatening to assassinate the president"? Both are technically correct. People who want to threaten to assassinate the president more often will call it "arrested for an online post". People who think assassination threats are bad and think it should happen less often call it "arrested for threatening assassination". The former group are currently much louder and their propaganda has worked.

basisword 1y ago

The fact it was a "single tweet" is completely irrelevant. It's the content of the tweet which is relevant.

tolien 1y ago

> You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previously admitted intending to stir up racial hatred. If you plead guilty to a charge, there's not much defense left. The offence she admitted to doesn't even take account of whether it's committed online - it's law that was passed in 1986. An aggravating factor that led to the sentence she got was that she had in fact posted multiple times in the same sort of way. Details of her appealing the sentence as excessive, rejected by the appeals court https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...

alexey-salmin 1y ago
So the context: she posted similar things online multiple times, she pleaded guilty, and the law in question can apply to offline activity as well -- all right, but all this still literally translates into "arrested for online posts". She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. This alone makes free speech proponents upset, regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not, or whether they agree or disagree with her political position.
- tolien 1y ago
  I wasn't saying the context I gave was an exhaustive list, I was suggesting that having Googled her name and maybe skimmed a couple of news articles, you might need to do some more reading before forming too much of an opinion. > She didn't throw rocks, she didn't set things on fire, she didn't stab anyone -- it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. Your contention seems to be that incitement shouldn't be an offence? That's at odds with legal systems all over the world, including the US, where Brandenburg v Ohio [0] holds that if inflammatory speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" that is an exception to the First Amendment and can be prosecuted, which seems to be at odds with "regardless of whether there were riots ongoing or not". The original point of my first post in this thread was that lumping together arrests for stalking, incitement to violence and other forms of harassment to produce a big scary number makes the argument seem utterly dishonest. The fact that so many "free speech proponents" fixate on one example when, if the stated number is true, there should be thousands of examples every year is a good demonstration of that. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  - yesco 1y ago
    > That's at odds with legal systems all over the world, including the US Not true. The US has a much higher bar for prosecuting speech than the UK. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - 395 U.S. 444 - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107965/brandenburg-v-ohio/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/107965/brandenburg-v-o... - Speech must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" - AND "likely to incite or produce such action" - General statements like "burn them all" typically fail both prongs The "imminent" requirement is key. Connolly's Facebook post lacked: - Specific targets or locations - Timeframe for action - Direct instructions to specific individuals - Any indication people were prepared to act on her words immediately Here are cases with far more explicit threats that were protected: United States v. Bagdasarian (2009) - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/221261/united-states-v-bagdasarian/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/221261/united-states-v... - Citation: 652 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2011) - Posted that Obama "will have a 50 cal in the head" with racial slurs - Result: Conviction reversed as crude political statement, not true threat United States v. Turner (2013) - https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/904120/united-states-v-turner/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/904120/united-states-v... - Citation: 720 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2013) - Posted that three federal judges "deserve to die" with their photos and addresses - Result: Conviction overturned as protected political hyperbole Connolly's "set fire to all the hotels" would likely be viewed as angry hyperbole in the United States, not meeting Brandenburg's strict standard. The distinction: The US prosecutes actual incitement (directing a mob to attack a building RIGHT NOW). The UK prosecutes offensive speech that merely might inspire someone, somewhere, someday. Your Brandenburg citation actually proves this difference rather than refutes it. You want thousands of examples? Check Twitter during any US political crisis - they're not prosecuted precisely because Brandenburg protects them.

immibis 1y ago

If I post "I'm going to kill the president, at $location tomorrow at $time" and I get arrested, was I arrested for "an online post", or was I arrested for "threatening to assassinate the president"? Both are technically correct. People who want to threaten to assassinate the president more often will call it "arrested for an online post". People who think assassination threats are bad and think it should happen less often call it "arrested for threatening assassination". The former group are currently much louder and their propaganda has worked.