Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

[P.J. Denyer]

Let's hope Starmer gets the chance to welcome Jimmy Lai back in a similar way.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's almost as if it isn't about freedom of speech at all!

 

[angrysoba]

Indeed!

IMO, he should never have been granted British citizenship (by the barely-right wing Tories) given his clear record of incitement to violence and killing

That’s a strange thing for a self/declared “centre-left” poster. Shouldn’t “barely right-wing” still be right of you, yet you make it sound as though it is a criticism.

Let me guess, this “barely right-wing” formulation is something you are parroting from all the GB News you consume.

 

[arthwollipot]

Instead you are back to your typical tribal denunciations of the "lefties" rather than a discussion of principles.

Interesting scapegoat for someone who claims to not be on the right.

 

[smartcooky]

Instead of all the distractions, diversions, misdirections, whataboutisms, personal attacks and questioning of my political position, how about actually addressing the issue, which is....

On the one hand you have Lucy Connolly, who makes a SINGLE post in anger in a response to the Southport riots and the cold blooded murder of three little girls aged six, seven and nine. She thinks better of it and deletes it quickly. But not quickly enough - the ever watchful UK Thought Police know about it. She is arrested and charged with the offence of inciting racial hatred. Gets a 31 month prison sentence.

On the other hand you have Alaa Abd El-Fattah, posting dozens of posts over a period of four years, inciting and indeed, encouraging the murder of Jews, while males and policemen. Never regrets posting any of them - some of them are still up. These are in plain view of the UK Thought Police.... what happened to him? Nothing! Nada! El Zippo! He gets a free pass.

Do any of you agree with allowing this scumbag into the country? "Because he is a British Citizen" will be regarded as a cheap cop-out and will not be accepted as a valid answer. I want to know what YOU personally think, not what your echo-chamber tells you to think.

I know you won't. Not ONE of you lefties is at all interested in HONESTLY addressing such difficult issues - ones that challenge your belief systems.

 

[arthwollipot]

On the one hand you have Lucy Connolly, who makes a SINGLE post in anger in a response to the Southport riots and the cold blooded murder of three little girls aged six, seven and nine. She thinks better of it and deletes it quickly. But not quickly enough - the ever watchful UK Thought Police know about it. She is arrested and charged with the offence of inciting racial hatred. Gets a 31 month prison sentence.

On the other hand you have Alaa Abd El-Fattah, posting dozens of posts over a period of four years, inciting and indeed, encouraging the murder of Jews, while males and policemen. Never regrets posting any of them - some of them are still up. These are in plain view of the UK Thought Police.... what happened to him? Nothing! Nada! El Zippo! He gets a free pass.

From my brief reading on the subject, I believe that neither of these paragraphs is an accurate reporting of the facts and are instead deliberately framed as outrage-bait, a typical rhetorical tactic of the right.

For a start, Lucy Connolly was jailed for multiple instances of incitement to violence, not for making a single innocent and quickly-deleted post. The post that you are referring to in fact was not deleted for three and a half hours, and received 310,000 views in that time.

Secondly, El-Fattah did not get a "free pass". He spent 12 years as a political prisoner in Egypt, a country that is not famed for their humane treatment of political prisoners.

In fact both situations are considerably more complicated than the extremist righties would have you believe. To the right, everything is either black or it is white. Everything is either good or it is evil. Everything is either the simplest, smartest, and most sensible thing in the world, or it is a radical leftie woke communist authoritarian ideology poisoning society and leading inexorably to the downfall of civilisation. The above two paragraphs illustrate this stark and politically puerile dichotomy very well indeed.

Was Connolly's sentence overly harsh? Probably. The judge who sentenced her has received strong criticism. Were El-Fattah's 10+ year old tweets racist and antisemitic? Certainly. But he is a British citizen who was unjustly detained for more than a decade overseas. Nothing is simple. Nothing is black-or-white.

The right constantly distorts reality with dishonest framing. They never admit when they're wrong, and when challenged they always accuse the "woke left" of tribalism and ideological purity while demonstrating exactly the behaviours they say they hate most.

 

[angrysoba]

"Because he is a British Citizen" will be regarded as a cheap cop-out and will not be accepted as a valid answer.

Why will this not be seen as a valid answer?

 

[arthwollipot]

He is a British citizen, detained unjustly overseas for over a decade. I think it's very relevant. Should countries not work to free their citizens from political imprisonment overseas? His history of antisemitic postings was not uncovered until after he was repatriated.

 

[angrysoba]

He is a British citizen, detained unjustly overseas for over a decade. I think it's very relevant. Should countries not work to free their citizens from political imprisonment overseas? His history of antisemitic postings was not uncovered until after he was repatriated.

Yeah, I have no idea about the timeline, but if he was granted British citizenship then... he's a British citizen, duh!

The British government is, or is supposed to be, against torture and so obviously should have supported their citizen getting intolerable treatment abroad. So instead of it being "unconscionable" to allow a British citizen back into the country, it would be worse to allow more torture to be meted out.

As for the double standard, it is smartcooky who is drawing the parallel and then saying he favours one rule for one person and a different rule for another person, even claiming that the incitement of violence by one person who he sympathises with is merely a "thought crime". Why is it a thought crime in one case and not in the other?

 

[smartcooky]

From my brief reading on the subject, I believe that neither of these paragraphs is an accurate reporting of the facts

Your reading was too brief, and flawed, so you are wrong - as you will soon see

and are instead deliberately framed as outrage-bait, a typical rhetorical tactic of the right.

The framing is irrelevant - Only the facts matter

And your claim of "rage bait" is waddle.

For a start, Lucy Connolly was jailed for multiple instances of incitement to violence, not for making a single innocent and quickly-deleted post.

Wrong again. Lucy Connolly was charged with a single count of inciting racial hatred, an offence contrary to Section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.

That charge stemmed from material she published in a single social media post on X on July 29, 2024. This material was described as "threatening, abusive or insulting" and was intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. The content included statements such as calls for "mass deportation now" and for people to "set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care"

That single post was the only evidence presented at trial.

If you are being told there is more to it than this, your echo chamber is lying to you. Your claim is hereby debunked.

The post that you are referring to in fact was not deleted for three and a half hours, and received 310,000 views in that time.

And?

Secondly, El-Fattah did not get a "free pass". He spent 12 years as a political prisoner in Egypt, a country that is not famed for their humane treatment of political prisoners.

Irrelevant, and you are now deliberately misrepresenting facts, and intentionally mischaracterizing what I said, which was that he got a free pass for the X posts I was referring to, and which I repeat here as a reminder to you

I don't give a fat rats arse what happened to him in Egypt.

In fact both situations are considerably more complicated than the extremist righties would have you believe.

Oh, do please elaborate on these "complexities" you claim exist. I can't wait to read about them!

<Irrelevant political waffling snipped>

Was Connolly's sentence overly harsh? Probably. The judge who sentenced her has received strong criticism. Were El-Fattah's 10+ year old tweets racist and antisemitic? Certainly.

The only thing you have said so far that is correct and makes any sense

But he is a British citizen who was unjustly detained for more than a decade overseas.

Not entirely true.

Abd El-Fattah began a five-year sentence in February 2015, from which he was released in late March 2019. In September 2019, during the 2019 Egyptian protests, was re-arrested by Egypt's National Security Agency and taken to State Security Prosecution on unknown charges (speculation was that, among other things, he had organized and unauthorized protest, assauled a policeman and again threatened Egyptian government official)

During all of that time he was NOT A BRITISH CITIZEN. He was not awarded British citizenship until 2021. How the ◊◊◊◊ a foreign-born criminal, still in a foreign prison, with a proven track-record of activism, anti-Semitism, and inciting the murders of others can even get British citizenship is beyond my understanding. What, are they giving British passports away in Shredded Wheat packets now?

<Irrelevant political waffling snipped>

 

[arthwollipot]

The framing is irrelevant - Only the facts matter

Well, I'm not about to argue with you about the facts since like I said I did only the briefest of research on a subject that I previously knew nothing about, and unlike some I am reluctant to argue from a position of ignorance. But framing is everything. Framing is incredibly important - the furthest thing from "irrelevant" that it could be. Check this out - it's a semi-random but still on topic article I picked from Ground News (not an ad):

Headline:
US Imposes Visas Bans on Thierry Breton and Four European NGO Figures Over Alleged Online Censorship

From the left:

• The U.S. imposed visa bans on five Europeans, including Thierry Breton, for allegedly advocating censorship against American viewpoints.
• The European Commission condemned the travel restrictions, highlighting EU digital rules that ensure fair treatment for companies.
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the sanctioned individuals are part of a 'global censorship-industrial complex' threatening free speech.
• Breton criticized the ban as a 'witch hunt', likening it to McCarthyism and asserted it undermines European democratic autonomy.

From the right:

• The Trump Administration barred five Europeans from entering the U.S. for allegedly pressuring tech firms to censor American viewpoints, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
• The banned individuals include Thierry Breton, Imran Ahmed, Clare Melford, Josephine Ballon, and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg.
• Rubio described the individuals as "radical" activists engaging in organized censorship against Americans.
• Rubio stated that these actions could have serious foreign policy consequences and that the U.S. will continue to combat foreign influence on speech.

Summary:

• Left-Leaning outlets frame the US sanctions as an "authoritarian attack" on "anti-disinformation figures" combating "hate speech," portraying the action as "intimidation and coercion" within a "cultural war.
• Conversely, right-leaning coverage presents the US move as a defense against "extraterritorial censorship" by "pro-censorship figures" or "radical activists" who "conspired with Big Tech to censor Americans," using terms like "weaponized NGOs" and even "butthurt" to dismiss European reactions.
• Center-Leaning reports attribute strong language like "witch hunt" while explaining why the administration was "annoyed.
• A pivotal dividing line is whether European efforts constitute legitimate "regulation" or an aggressive "censorship push," with the latter de-emphasizing the Digital Services Act's objectives.
• All perspectives agree on the US State Department barring five Europeans, including Thierry Breton, over online content roles and the strong European condemnation, revealing ideological clashes over free speech versus content moderation.

Same facts, very different framing. Two people, each reading only one side, would end up with quite different views on the subject. This is the danger of the internet information bubble, and the very thing that Ground News was created to combat. "Framing is irrelevant" is a profoundly ignorant and naïve statement. Framing radicalises people. And rightists have weaponised it.

I tried to do this comparison with the story about Lucy Connolly, but it turns out that there is nothing from the left. Everything being said about her currently is coming from the right. And I think that fact alone should tell you something.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, I'm not about to argue with you about the facts since like I said I did only the briefest of research on a subject that I previously knew nothing about, and unlike some I am reluctant to argue from a position of ignorance. But framing is everything. Framing is incredibly important - the furthest thing from "irrelevant" that it could be. Check this out - it's a semi-random but still on topic article I picked from Ground News (not an ad):

Headline:
US Imposes Visas Bans on Thierry Breton and Four European NGO Figures Over Alleged Online Censorship

From the left:

From the right:

Summary:


Same facts, very different framing. Two people, each reading only one side, would end up with quite different views on the subject. This is the danger of the internet information bubble, and the very thing that Ground News was created to combat. "Framing is irrelevant" is a profoundly ignorant and naïve statement. Framing radicalises people. And rightists have weaponised it.

Who cares? Certainly not me.

I tried to do this comparison with the story about Lucy Connolly, but it turns out that there is nothing from the left. Everything being said about her currently is coming from the right. And I think that fact alone should tell you something.

The fact that there is "nothing from the left" tells me the left wing media know they're going to be on a hiding to nothing because there is no way they will be able to spin the established facts to fit their preferred narrative.

I suspect what it tells you will be vastly different from what it tells me.

NOTE: You don't seem to want to discuss or acknowledge where I debunked your defective claims and corrected you where you were wrong. Never mind - I didn't expect you would.

 

[arthwollipot]

Who cares? Certainly not me.

Of course you don't care. You're the victim of it. You willingly and deliberately close your eyes to the way the right-wing media frames issues to stoke outrage, and in doing so you unconsciously adopt their methods, including being completely resistant to anything that is outside your narrow ideology. This statement by you is a demonstration of it.

You don't seem to want to discuss or acknowledge where I debunked your defective claims and corrected you where you were wrong. Never mind - I didn't expect you would.

I said I don't want to be arguing from a position of ignorance. It's a trait that many people should cultivate.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not about freedom of speech really.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Anyway Farage says he has reported Alaa Abd el-Fattah to counter-terrorism police, so his goose is as good as cooked.

 

[angrysoba]

Furthermore it IS an issue of free speech. This is an irrefutable fact. Lucy Connolly was jailed for speech that was nowhere near as hateful or inciteful as that which this scumbag posted, yet he is rewarded for his hate and incitement to kill with a free British citizenship. Its a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ disgrace.

Forget about the sentencing and the comparison with someone else for a second. Do you think that this tweet is incitement? Yes or No?

Edited by jimbob: 

 

[Planigale]

I doubt this piece of human trash is making the fine distinction. Islamists pretty much regard Israelis, Jews and Zionists as all the same, and want all of them exterminated.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of the facts you base your prejudices on. Fattah is a secular pro-democrat. He has promoted LGBT rights in Egypt. His main political stance is pro-democracy, pro-freedom of speech in Egypt. You have made the racist assumption that someone with an Arab name is an Islamist.

I suggest the fact that no one has uncovered a tweet about Jews means he was not making any anti-Jewish comments. Although some may claim criticism of Israel and zionism is anti-semitic and should be exempt from critical review, both are political institutions and should be subject to political analysis.

As said I do not condone any calls for violence, or violence.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Don't forget her appeal was rejected.

Giving a written judgment on Tuesday, three Court of Appeal judges said Connolly's principal ground of appeal "was substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected".

Connolly v R. (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Crim 657 (20 May 2025)

 

[Darat]

Don't forget her appeal was rejected.

Giving a written judgment on Tuesday, three Court of Appeal judges said Connolly's principal ground of appeal "was substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected".

Connolly v R. (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Crim 657 (20 May 2025)

And don't forget she pleaded guilty to the offence. The appeal was only against the sentence she received.

 

[smartcooky]

Again you demonstrate ignorance of the facts you base your prejudices on. Fattah is a secular pro-democrat. He has promoted LGBT rights in Egypt. His main political stance is pro-democracy, pro-freedom of speech in Egypt. You have made the racist assumption that someone with an Arab name is an Islamist.

Just as we say, 'when you parrot the talking points of Nazis, that makes you a Nazi" so its also reasonable to apply that to Islamists - when you parrot the talking of Islamists - kill white people (infidel) kill Jews, kill Israelis, kill Zionists, that makes you an Islamist.

The tenor of his social media posts makes him an Islamist.

I suggest the fact that no one has uncovered a tweet about Jews means he was not making any anti-Jewish comments. Although some may claim criticism of Israel and zionism is anti-semitic and should be exempt from critical review, both are political institutions and should be subject to political analysis.

Again you demonstrate ignorance of the facts you base your claims on.

The majority of El-Fattah's Tweets are in the Arabic language. Throughout those Tweets, he consistently uses the term "Yahudi" (written in Arabic script as يهودي if you wish to search his Arabic postings). This is a term which, in Arabic verbal and written communication means "Jewish", but is conflated across the board to "Jews," "Israelis," or "Zionists" If he really wanted only to say "Zionist", he would say "sahyuniun" (صهيوني) - he doesn't. If he wanted to only say "Israeli" he would say "iisrayiyliun" (إسرائيلي) - he doesn't.

In effect, El-Fattah makes no distiction between them, when he says kill Yahudi, he literally means Jews, Israelis and Zionists, making no distiction betwen any of them

Side Note: This is the same thing BBC Arabic was criticized for in Prescott's report on their political bias.

As said I do not condone any calls for violence, or violence.

I should hope not

FYI, here are some more of his "delightful" Tweets

 

[smartcooky]

And don't forget she pleaded guilty to the offence. The appeal was only against the sentence she received.

Irrelevant. She was given terrible advice by her lawyer. Ricky Jones (a Labour councillor) was recorded on video directly urging for throats to be cut, which is far worse than anything Connolly posted, and was found not guilty.

Note the double standard at play here: Tweet the wrong thing in Britain and you'll be arrested and possibly serve prison time. Tweet the wrong thing in Egypt, and the British government will bring you there, put you up, pay for your child's special school, and all of this while you call Britons monkeys and dogs and boast about how much you hate white people.

You get sentenced to 2+ years prison for a hurty tweet with "anti-immigrant sentiment", but when this guy just straight up calls for genocide, he is rewarded with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ passport.

Lets be clear here. Starmer bragged about bringing an openly pro-violence, pro-terrorist, anti-British, anti-White, racist anti-Semite into the UK, and none of you have expressed any real objection, so I have to take it that many of you are just fine with it. Starmer is now trying to claim he had no idea about El_Fattah's social media posts. But he is a liar. He raised this very issue in Parliament three years ago when he was in Opposition!!

 

[arthwollipot]

British-Egyptian rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah apologises for ‘hurtful’ tweets

Campaigner recently released from prison makes statement after PM’s support is questioned by Tory MPs

www.theguardian.com

In a statement issued in the early hours of Monday morning, after a day of frantic consultations, he wrote: “Looking at the tweets now – the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning – I do understand how shocking and hurtful they are, and for that I unequivocally apologise.

“They were mostly expressions of a young man’s anger and frustrations in a time of regional crises (the wars on Iraq, on Lebanon and Gaza), and the rise of police brutality against Egyptian youth. I particularly regret some that were written as part of online insult battles with the total disregard for how they read to other people. I should have known better.”

 

[smartcooky]

British-Egyptian rights activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah apologises for ‘hurtful’ tweets

Campaigner recently released from prison makes statement after PM’s support is questioned by Tory MPs

www.theguardian.com

"In a statement issued in the early hours of Monday morning, after a day of frantic consultations, he wrote: “Looking at the tweets now – the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning – I do understand how shocking and hurtful they are, and for that I unequivocally apologise.​

​

“They were mostly expressions of a young man’s anger and frustrations in a time of regional crises (the wars on Iraq, on Lebanon and Gaza), and the rise of police brutality against Egyptian youth. I particularly regret some that were written as part of online insult battles with the total disregard for how they read to other people. I should have known better.”​

..."the ones that were not completely twisted out of their meaning"!?? Really?? ..."if we can't kill the officers, let us find a terroristic cell to kill their children and torture their mothers". How the ◊◊◊◊ do you twist that out of its meaning? Seriously? Who the ◊◊◊◊ does this scumbag think he's kidding?

Actually, I take that back. Pathetic bleeding heart liberal progressives will swallow this transparent, self-serving bollocks by the gobfull. Well I'm not fooled... not for a second. I don't believe him - I don't believe anyone with such a vile worldview can have a sudden kumbaya moment and be truly sorry for such disgusting tripe.

He's just sorry he got found out.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't believe anyone with such a vile worldview can have a sudden kumbaya moment

He's had ten ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ years in an Egyptian prison. You don't think someone can change after that? Once a criminal, always a criminal, is that it?

 

[smartcooky]

He's had ten ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ years in an Egyptian prison.

Which would harden most people.

You don't think someone can change after that?

Possible, barely

Once a criminal, always a criminal, is that it?

Pretty much

www.arab-reform.net/publication/the-social-and-economic-cost-of-egypts-prison-system/

Egypt is considered one of the countries with high recidivism rates. According to a study conducted by the National Center for Social and Criminological Research in 2011, recidivism in released prisoners reached 34.6% — a very high percentage that clearly demonstrates the failure of the prison system to achieve its goals.​

​

I think recidivism rates are a bit of a red herring here - we're talking about his political position. - but you asked.

I just don't believe him. I do not believe that level of sheer hatred can just disappear in a few years. I would need to see proof, in much the same way that a parole board needs to see proof of rehabilitation before they will release you (even though they get it wrong far too often for my liking)

El-Fattah is 44 years old (born in 1981)... when he was posting those Tweets from 2010 to 2013 he was 29 to 32 years old. That is a grown up. People of that age are very likely to have already formed the worldview they are likely to stay with for the rest of their lives. 29 to 32 years old is well past the angry youngster stage.

 

[angrysoba]

Irrelevant. She was given terrible advice by her lawyer. Ricky Jones (a Labour councillor) was recorded on video directly urging for throats to be cut, which is far worse than anything Connolly posted, and was found not guilty.

Is saying "set fire to all the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hotels full of the bastards for all I care" genuinely worse than someone saying "we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all"?

They look like statements as bad as each other to me.

According to the [biased] BBC, in an article dated August 16th 2025 "Ricky Jones, 58, has been on trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he was seen on video making reference to "disgusting Nazi fascists" while addressing a crowd in Walthamstow on 7 August last year."

So that is about one year of legal process, and we all know that you claim that "the process is the punishment".

So why did Ricky Jones get off? According to the [biased] BBC:

"Mr Jones was arrested the day after making the comments and told the court he felt it was his "duty" to attend counter-protests.

Jurors deliberated for just over half an hour before finding him not guilty on Friday."

The jury found him not guilty.

So what is your theory of the case here, smartcooky?

Unless you think there is really a material difference between what Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones said, you seem to be making the argument that Lucy Connolly's lawyers and Ricky Jones's jury are all part of some conspiracy to punish one group of people (Tories? White people?) and let another group of people off (Labour politicians? People not quite white enough for you?).

And please answer the question I asked you before. Do you think Lucy Connolly's tweet was an incitement to violence, yes or no?

Stop hiding and spit it out man!

 

[angrysoba]

He's had ten ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ years in an Egyptian prison. You don't think someone can change after that? Once a criminal, always a criminal, is that it?

My understanding is that Maajid Nawaz did. Although, he turned into an anti-vax freak afterwards, so the jury's out on that. LOL!

But anyway, I don't really think we should assume that he must have must not have turned over a new leaf.

I think a more plausible explanation, which is still pretty damning of both Tories and Labour, is that neither of the parties had properly vetted this guy which is pretty astonishing frankly.

Unlike smartcooky, I don't think Starmer is rubbing his hands in glee at the idea that he is importing some anti-semitic mastermind. I think the answer is that he's a bit dim, although probably not as dim as Liz Truss, who is suddenly hopping mad over this even though she was foreign minister when Alaa Abd el-Fattah was given citizenship, or Boris Johnson, who was prime minister.

 

[angrysoba]

Lets be clear here. Starmer bragged about bringing an openly pro-violence, pro-terrorist, anti-British, anti-White, racist anti-Semite into the UK, and none of you have expressed any real objection, so I have to take it that many of you are just fine with it. Starmer is now trying to claim he had no idea about El_Fattah's social media posts. But he is a liar.
He raised this very issue in Parliament three years ago when he was in Opposition!!

Do you have a citation for this?

 

[arthwollipot]

Pretty much

I see.

I just don't believe him. I do not believe that level of sheer hatred can just disappear in a few years. I would need to see proof, in much the same way that a parole board needs to see proof of rehabilitation before they will release you (even though they get it wrong far too often for my liking)

What would that proof look like?

El-Fattah is 44 years old (born in 1981)... when he was posting those Tweets from 2010 to 2013 he was 29 to 32 years old. That is a grown up. People of that age are very likely to have already formed the worldview they are likely to stay with for the rest of their lives. 29 to 32 years old is well past the angry youngster stage.

Do you really think people can't change their views after the age of 32? I think that's extremely uncharitable of you. I know plenty of people who have changed significantly in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Including me. Including you. I assume that you're not under 32. Apologies if you are.

Anyway, as far as I have seen in certain sectors of the Arab world, they say "death to Israel" the way we say "◊◊◊◊", with exactly the same level of commitment.

 

[angrysoba]

I see.


What would that proof look like?


Do you really think people can't change their views after the age of 32? I think that's extremely uncharitable of you. I know plenty of people who have changed significantly in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Including me. Including you. I assume that you're not under 32. Apologies if you are.

Anyway, as far as I have seen in certain sectors of the Arab world, they say "death to Israel" the way we say "◊◊◊◊", with exactly the same level of commitment.

Anything smartcooky is saying about Alaa Abd el-Fattah is nothing but a distraction. It makes no sense for him to be complaining about a lack of freedom of speech in the UK by complaining that Alaa Abd el-Fattah is not being punished for his speech except as a smokescreen for Lucy Connolly, but smartcooky has not told us whether he agreees that her speech is incitement to violence.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I think a more plausible explanation, which is still pretty damning of both Tories and Labour, is that neither of the parties had properly vetted this guy which is pretty astonishing frankly.

...snip....

This. I was surprised it only came to light when he was able to return to UK, it didn't come to light when he was released and not even when the right wing* were trying to get him back.

*I believe we now have to label everything as either right or left wing.

 

[Mojo]

This. I was surprised it only came to light when he was able to return to UK, it didn't come to light when he was released and not even when the right wing* were trying to get him back.

*I believe we now have to label everything as either right or left wing.

No, I believe that the approved terms are "centrist" and "loony-lefty".

 

[Andy_Ross]

Free speech latest.

British comedian Dom Joly barred from US after attacks on Donald Trump

https://twitter.com/x/status/2005965362672853383

 

[Nessie]

Instead of all the distractions, diversions, misdirections, whataboutisms, personal attacks and questioning of my political position, how about actually addressing the issue, which is....

On the one hand you have Lucy Connolly, who makes a SINGLE post in anger in a response to the Southport riots and the cold blooded murder of three little girls aged six, seven and nine. She thinks better of it and deletes it quickly. But not quickly enough - the ever watchful UK Thought Police know about it. She is arrested and charged with the offence of inciting racial hatred. Gets a 31 month prison sentence.

On the other hand you have Alaa Abd El-Fattah, posting dozens of posts over a period of four years, inciting and indeed, encouraging the murder of Jews, while males and policemen. Never regrets posting any of them - some of them are still up. These are in plain view of the UK Thought Police.... what happened to him? Nothing! Nada! El Zippo! He gets a free pass.

Do any of you agree with allowing this scumbag into the country? "Because he is a British Citizen" will be regarded as a cheap cop-out and will not be accepted as a valid answer. I want to know what YOU personally think, not what your echo-chamber tells you to think.

I know you won't. Not ONE of you lefties is at all interested in HONESTLY addressing such difficult issues - ones that challenge your belief systems.

The reason why Connolly was treated more severely than El-Fattah, is because the state fears crimes against itself, in particular, spreading national rioting, more than any crime against the individual or group in society. Throughout history, in every country in the world, the government and judiciary cracks down hard on those who riot, or incite riots, when rioting is spreading across the country.

Little local riots, that show no signs of spreading across the country, that can be contained by the police, courts and prisons, do not attract the same level of punishment. When riots show signs of becoming national, the courts in particular are very swift and punishing and imprisoning people to act as a deterrent to other prospective rioters. The publicity generated by jailing Connolly, is a deterrent, to stop the police, courts and prisons becoming totally overwhelmed, which the state fears more than anything else.

It has always been that way and at the last national riots in 2011, people got prison for incitement on social media, with the police and courts expressing concern about how easy it was to incite people online. Two males got 4 years for suggesting people meet at a fast food outlet and riot, and the only other people to turn up were the police, to arrest them. By 2025, people had forgotten all about that, or the excitement of a riot got the better of them, and they are now in serious trouble.

A little bit of research and you will find lots of instances of immediate and severe crack downs on rioters, from Peterloo in 1819 to George Square in 1919. What happened to Connolly, to anyone who has looked at how governments deal with national riots, understands that it is normal. By 2012, rioters from 2011 had been sent to prison for a total of over 1800 years and arrests were still being made.

England riots one year on: Culprits jailed for 1,800 years

Prison sentences totalling more than 1,800 years have been handed out to rioters following the disorder which began exactly a year ago.

www.bbc.co.uk

In about 10 years time, when the UK next has a national riot, the same will happen again and people who do not bother to find out why, will get confused by the severe penalties for those who incite rioting.

 

[smartcooky]

Beware the groups who use edge cases and social norms to curtail free speech - The Skeptic

Charlie Kirk was a poster boy for a movement that pays lip service to free speech while bullying and intimidating critics into silence

www.skeptic.org.uk

The article makes a fundamental mistake about free speech Its not a problem, and its not illegal for

- Individuals like Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro, Joy Reid or Owen Jones to shout down down opponents.
- Companies to limit what their employees are allowed to say about them.
- Social Media companies to limit what you can say on their platforms.

Its best illustrated by this XKCD...

It ONLY becomes an issue when the GOVERNMENT starts to do it.

 

[arthwollipot]

The article makes a fundamental mistake about free speech Its not a problem, and its not illegal for...

So everything not illegal is perfectly acceptable? What about those consequences Randall is talking about? Why should there be consequences if it's "not a problem"?

 

[angrysoba]

So everything not illegal is perfectly acceptable? What about those consequences Randall is talking about? Why should there be consequences if it's "not a problem"?

There are plenty of things that are not morally acceptable, in my opinion, but which should nevertheless be legally acceptable.

Things which should not be legally acceptable are direct calls for violence or threats. This is why I keep asking smartcooky about Lucy Connolly's actual tweet. He has clearly blocked me because he hasn't answered my questions about it. Instead he characterizes her words as:

a hurty tweet with "anti-immigrant sentiment",

It is NOT a "hurty tweet" with "anti-immigrant sentiment". She says "set fire to all the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hotels full of the bastards".

Could someone directly point this out to smartcooky, please!

 

[arthwollipot]

It is NOT a "hurty tweet" with "anti-immigrant sentiment". She says "set fire to all the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hotels full of the bastards".

And the context, which @smartcooky has not presented, is that she tweeted it during an anti-immigrant riot where rioters were trying to set fire to hotels with immigrants in them. She knew this, as the judge found, and said it anyway, and it was viewed by 300,000 people.

I learned this by listening to The Know Rogan Experience podcast, where two well-known skeptics from either side of the pond tear into and comprehensively break down the lies, conspiracy theories, and mis/disinformation that Joe Rogan spreads and promotes on the biggest podcast platform in the world.

 

[angrysoba]

And the context, which @smartcooky has not presented, is that she tweeted it during an anti-immigrant riot where rioters were trying to set fire to hotels with immigrants in them. She knew this, as the judge found, and said it anyway, and it was viewed by 300,000 people.

I learned this by listening to The Know Rogan Experience podcast, where two well-known skeptics from either side of the pond tear into and comprehensively break down the lies, conspiracy theories, and mis/disinformation that Joe Rogan spreads and promotes on the biggest podcast platform in the world.

Sure, but it was well-known to people in the UK at the time. smartcooky should try to research what happened instead of parroting talking points from his echo chamber.

 

[Darat]

Have to say it again, she pled guilty to the charge so she agreed with what she was charged with. Folk who think she didn't do what she admitted to are at odds with her interpretation of her own words, at odds with what she has agreed was her intentions.