[tolien]

> 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-Con...

[alexey-salmin]

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]

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

[yesco]

> 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-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...

- 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...

- 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]

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.

[yesco]

I misunderstood what you were trying to imply but still think your premise is mistaken. My reply is merely directed at anyone implying the US's free speech-laws are somehow comparable to the authoritarian anti-free-speech laws the UK has.

[tolien]

Do expand on that point then.

Edit: If I remove the reference to Brandenburg, I'm not sure my point substantially changes:

Incitement is an offence in the UK and also in other countries. You can argue whether that should be the case or not but that's completely orthogonal.

Gathering a whole lot of offenses which happened to include online activity to produce a big number of people who you can claim were prosecuted for something that you can claim is as innocuous as "online posts" is dishonest.

[immibis]

The US has about the most extremist speech laws on the planet. They are a significant outlier, and shouldn't be used as a benchmark.

[andybak]

> 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]

I guess no one ever claimed authoritarianism was imposed on the British unwillingly. Seems to have lots of defenders.

[andybak]

Out of interest, which country are you writing that from?