zlacker

Indeed: https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/17/man-jailed-burning-migrant-ho...

“An X user who posted two anti-immigration tweets been handed a 18-month jail sentence.”

Edit to point out 1. That is a quote and 2. The UK considers this Ok though https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo

>>mosura+(OP)
Not that I believe people should be jailed for speech, but merely referring to what he said as “anti-immigration” is very much burying the lede

>>mosura+(OP)
What were the tweets?

That would be important context to mention, don't you think?

>>_bohm+94
For people too lazy to click, the second post was:

> I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

> Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't be nothing.

>>creata+S7
This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

>>creata+S7
"then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament" - that's the bit that probably set it in motion

>>creata+S7
The US has a three part test[1] for what constitutes incitement:

- intent

- imminence

- likelihood

If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective).

[1] https://uslawexplained.com/incitement

>>creata+S7
Sounds fine.

>>brigan+ma
These tweets had 33 views. At least before being made a charge.

I think that puts the likelihood-factor at zero.

>>MangoT+98
This is definitely not a crime in the US per the US Supreme Court. Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

>>mosura+(OP)
> Yarwood replied: ‘Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.’

That's terrorist speech tho. My problem is that everyone can reasonably get on board with banning speech that indicates violent action, and that the reliance on "muh free speech!!!" has been a net negative for actually defending the right of people to have privacy, because people rely on that sans any other (better) arguments.

>>jandre+to
The Something Awful Forums got investigated by the FBI after one or two people posted threats about the current president.

So, uh, yes. It's definitely something that the federal authorities take a dim view on.

>>jandre+to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

> Several additional conditions not in evidence are required for speech of this type to fall outside of First Amendment protections.

Perhaps your point would be clearer if you indicated what specific conditions you believe are missing. Maybe the tweeter had no followers? Idk, I can only vaguely guess at what you're referring to.

>>MangoT+98
It didn't happen in the US though, so that's neither here nor there. America's political system is not some benchmark that the rest of the world needs to judge themselves against.

>>fao_+GB
You're mixing up "take a dim view" on and investigation, with charging and conviction.

>>brigan+LC2
Inciting violence is certainly an arrestable offence, and likely convictable. What hill are you trying to die on?

>>MangoT+Gy5
The hill where take a dim view on and investigation are distinct from charging and conviction, because they are.

You would also have to contend with the problem where you've decided that it is incitement, as if conviction is a formality, even though:

- investigation

- charging

- court process

all come before conviction, which is convenient but not particularly bright or persuasive when they're mentioned in the comment you replied to.