- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth
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.
deleted by creator
This. There was reports days before her arrest with her real name, it’s been known
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.
deleted by creator
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.
But now internet people can harass her and the newspaper can make a little more money! /s
Wrrrooonnngggg
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
Ironically, the reason for all this in the first place.
deleted by creator
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)
‘Exc–’ he began. But the citizen’s eyes had already detected the notebook. ‘I saw it all,’ he said. ‘Did you?’ ‘It was a ter-ri-ble scene,’ said the man, at dictation speed. ‘But the watch-man made a deathdefying plunge to res-cue the old lady and he de-serves a med-al.’ ‘Really?’ said William, scribbling fast. ‘And you are–’ ‘Sa-muel Arblaster (43), stonemason, of The Scours,’ said the man. ‘I saw it too,’ said a woman next to him, urgently. ‘Mrs Florrie Perry, blonde mother of three, from Dolly Sisters. It was a scene of car-nage.’
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
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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Spofforth, 55, posted the false claim at 4.49pm on Monday, July 29, the day of the attack, saying: ‘Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.’
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.
“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.)
Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online.
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?
Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone’s grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.
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.
Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
thought of being arrested for lying on the internet
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.
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.
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
wow she only got arrested because she got caught
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.
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.
Allowing others’ speech is the default
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.
The first amendment rights don’t necessarily protect you from the consequences of speech.
Speech can facilitate crime, e.g. libel and slander.
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
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.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.
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
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.
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.
- Being ordinary shouldn’t protect you from legal consequences of starting nationwide riots.
- Blaming Starmer for far right riots is super weird.
- The rioters are the ones who want to turn it into a police state. This is just justice.
- You have this strange notion that it can’t be criminal to say a thing, but how many war criminals did the deeds themselves? How many evil leaders were more hands-on than their followers? The worst criminals use words and let their followers go to jail for carrying out their wishes.
- Hooray! The more people that know YOU CAN GO TO JAIL in the UK for inciting a riot on Xitter, Faceschmuk or Telegrunt, the better. Actually hooray. Actual firestarters going to jail rather than just saying they were “asking important questions”. Farage next please.
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
Yes, mistakes are made,
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.
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.
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.
Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.
bingo. change has to start somewhere.
You don’t think we should blame the one person who made up the lie and sparked racist riots across the country?
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.
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.
Metro UK - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Metro UK:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceFine. You get an upvote for self improvement and being useful for once… but I’m still going to be bitchy about it 😊
Removed by mod
real big “why can’t I yell fire in this building?” vibes.
Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie.
And yet, it’s there. Just as it is in defamation law.
Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion[?]
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?
When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal?
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.
