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.
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.
It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.
Well I think the state should have the power to jail people for starting nationwide riots. I don’t see why you don’t. It’s weird. You think the rioters should go to jail but the ones that kicked it off shouldn’t? Really odd.
It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
I think you’re spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson’s dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.
I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:
The UK doesn’t have a written constitution. A principal is that no Parliament can bind its successor. The state can give itself whatever powers it likes. The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest, which rather goes against “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” The people who went to prison for saying we’d better not kill the planet went uncommented by you, but this woman triggering a sequence of riots is where you draw the line?
No, in the UK there is no absolute and overriding right to say anything. If you incite violence, you can be sent to prison. Do you not have laws about libel? Is that not the state punishing people for speech? Why is it worse in the USA to say a nasty and untrue thing about a celebrity than to say a nasty and untrue thing that triggers riots? Is Trump OK to call for insurrection because it was only words? I think you may be overvaluing the freedom to cause problems with words and underestimating the extent to which you can get in trouble for it in America.
I’ve never heard a “Free speech absolutist” with good motives. I’m very much not one. The state stopping bad things from happening is a good thing, no?
I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.
But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.
Is it OK to go after Trump for inciting insurrection?
Is it OK to go after people for libel and slander?
If so, why is it OK to restrict speech for harming a reputation but not OK to restrict speech for causing violence?
It seems to me that the American line on free speech is really inconsistent.