"When a middle-aged mother lashes out at asylum seekers in a social-media post"
She urged people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
"When a middle-aged mother lashes out at asylum seekers in a social-media post"
She urged people to set fire to hotels housing asylum seekers.
They did try to, as well, in Manvers. Can't remember if this was before or after her post, and presumably they weren't really following her instructions, but given the high probability that her post might cause somebody to set a hotel on fire, it seems that she could have been convicted even under US law.
"Bins were set alight and pushed against fire exits"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyj2nlw9wgo
Some people broke the law, and the poster can be held accountable for successful incitement. It's not the post that broke the law per se.
You can yell fire in a crowded theatre. Just hope you don't cause a panic or you'll be in trouble.
Well, the test is if it's directed to and likely to cause a panic (in the US). So if you avoid causing a panic by sheer luck - like something counteracts your yelling and everybody settles down again, and that's the only reason nobody was crushed - you're still in trouble.
Though moral luck is certainly a thing in general, where negligence and risk-taking is not a crime until it goes wrong.
Aware of the US distinction, and it's mostly sensible. I believe in the US you actually can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and if nothing happens, you'll be given the benefit of the doubt. As it should be.
Anything else a genuinely slippery slope.
> You can yell fire in a crowded theatre. Just hope you don't cause a panic or you'll be in trouble.
But what if laws get interpreted through an ideological lens, and the person shouting happens to be a fellow member of the "Pro-Trampling Party"?
Then that'll be factored in as intent and they'll be held accountable for the consequences - not the speech itself.
The important part is that yelling "fire" is fine if the entire theatre laughs it off.
Absolutely, at least they had to honesty to include what she said - incitement to mass murder immigrants and politicians - while there were rioters actively attacking hotels and mosques and after 2 MPs were murdered in office. The rest of the article is the same predictable hand-wringing over EU countries (whose actions are concerning), while white-washing what the US does. For example:
> ...the administration suspended her visa and put her in immigration detention.
In that case the student was grabbed off the street by masked men (which bystanders thought was a kidnapping) and disappeared to another state (against judge's orders), kept in dire conditions, with her friends/family/lawyer initially not knowing what happened is.
What's the exact quote?
Other protesters also have said some vile things about other people and it's allowed to go on. So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage (looting, burning cars, etc.), physical assault or pose an immediate danger to people or things in their immediate vicinity.
Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people. If they become physically violent or threatening, then sure, arrest them. "Shitposting" on X/Twitter, etc., should not get you arrested.
People in China know the consequences of not being able to say vile and disgusting things about their own government when they crush dissent.
> Other protesters also have said some vile things about other people and it's allowed to go on. So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
For example: The now-suspended councillor, wearing a black polo top and surrounded by cheering supporters, said: “They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.” - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/15/suspended-labour... (unpaywall: https://archive.is/gT2fa)
He was charged, but the jury took little more than half an hour to reach a not guilty verdict. Speculation is that this was simple in-group preference - The trial was at Snaresbrook Crown Court, in the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. At the 2021 Census, the white British population in Leyton and Wanstead was less than 34% of the total population. The jury likely reflected that. And such in-group preference is well documented: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-inst...
> So it seems that the law isn't applied evenly.
Of course. It is applied by humans, with all the failings that implies.
>In any case, people should be able to protest and should only face lawful restrictions if they cause immediate property damage ... Just saying vile and disgusting things should not be a basis for prohibiting and or arresting people.
That may be your viewpoint, but UK law says otherwise.
All the failings occur on one side, then it’s not an issue of human error
It's, to borrow a locally inspired term of a local socialist, "Orwellian." It's a bit ironic.
Are you saying that because Orwell was a socialist? Not so re he's local though.
[dead]