Francis Chudley

Getting sick of repeating this so I’m going to just put it into one long post/maybe thread that I can share with people. No-one has been jailed for harmless social media posts during the riots. Every single person who was jailed broke the law. They were not jailed for ‘jokes’ or ‘silly posts after a couple of glasses of wine’. They were jailed for publishing written material online to stir up racial hatred, for inciting violence, or for breaking other related laws. In the UK, free speech is protected, but there are clear limits when it comes to posting violent threats or inciting racial hatred online. Several laws ensure that this kind of harmful content isn’t just shrugged off as "free speech”. Under section 18 of the public order act 1986, it’s a crime to use "threatening, abusive, or insulting words" with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or even if it’s likely to do so. This means you can be arrested for posting something that could incite hatred, even if no one actually acts on it. It’s still a crime. Then there’s the serious crime act 2007 (specifically sections 44 and 45), which makes it illegal to encourage or assist a crime online, including violence. Again, the key here is that your intent or the likelihood of causing a crime is enough to get you into legal trouble, even if the crime doesn’t actually happen. It’s still a crime. The communications act 2003 (section 127) also plays a role, making it an offense to send messages that are “grossly offensive” or “menacing”. So, if you post something that’s threatening or meant to harass, you can face charges regardless of whether the threat is carried out. It’s still a crime. Lastly, the new online safety act put in place in 2024 (before Labour were in power, for you ‘two-tier Keir’ lot) ramps up accountability, requiring platforms to remove harmful content and holding people responsible for posting it. Elmo doesn’t seem to care about this right now, but it’s still in UK law. Here are three examples of people locked up, and why they were locked up: 1) Jordan Parlour: 28 year old from Leeds, jailed for 20 months after he posted on Facebook urging people to attack a hotel housing asylum seekers. His posts were intended to incite racial hatred and violence, leading to his arrest and conviction under the public order act 1986. He pleaded guilty. 2) Wayne O’Rourke: 35 year old from Lincoln, sentenced to three years in prison for using his large social media following to stir up racial hatred. He posted inflammatory content encouraging others to join in anti-immigrant violence, which led to his arrest and then sentencing. His arrest was not for anti-establishment content, that was simply mentioned in the case. The charges were very clear and he also pleaded guilty. 3) Tyler Kay: 26 year old from Northampton, sentenced to 38 months for his social media activity. He reposted messages calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire, which the court found to be a clear attempt to incite racial violence. He initially contested the charges, but evidence shown in court proved his guilt, and he was convicted. The first two were not forced to plead guilty, the evidence was clear. It’s nothing to do with discounted sentences, and there’s no evidence to suggest it was, they just didn’t have a leg to stand on. In the UK, free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything without consequences. The law draws a line when speech becomes harmful, especially when it threatens violence or incites hatred. The law in the US is different because the first amendment offers more protection, even for hate speech, unless it directly incites imminent lawless action. The UK focuses more on preventing harm before it happens, recognising that words can have serious real world consequences.