3 ms·

> You don't think this counts as "arrested for online posts"? You've definitely missed some context. For example, and fairly significantly: > Connolly previou

by 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.
    - tolien 1y ago
      Point taken, but incitement is still an offence in other countries. That the US has specific, and particularly permissive, laws around what constitutes speech is neither here nor there. > You want thousands of examples? Of people people prosecuted for innocuous speech in the UK, the original claim in this thread. Brandenburg doesn't apply there.
- andybak 1y ago
  > it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. Are we really going to have to have the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" conversation? I think there is some nuance to the conversation about this woman - but you are avoiding it with incredible agility.
  - dmix 1y ago
    I guess no one ever claimed authoritarianism was imposed on the British unwillingly. Seems to have lots of defenders.
    - andybak 1y ago
      Out of interest, which country are you writing that from?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

by tolien 1y ago

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.
  - tolien 1y ago
    Point taken, but incitement is still an offence in other countries. That the US has specific, and particularly permissive, laws around what constitutes speech is neither here nor there. > You want thousands of examples? Of people people prosecuted for innocuous speech in the UK, the original claim in this thread. Brandenburg doesn't apply there.
andybak 1y ago
> it was her speech that got her a multi-year jail term. Are we really going to have to have the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" conversation? I think there is some nuance to the conversation about this woman - but you are avoiding it with incredible agility.
- dmix 1y ago
  I guess no one ever claimed authoritarianism was imposed on the British unwillingly. Seems to have lots of defenders.
  - andybak 1y ago
    Out of interest, which country are you writing that from?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]