How Lucy Connolly’s racist tweet sparked a unfastened speech row

Lucy Connolly’s 51-word on-line put up within the wake of the Southport killings led her to prison and into the centre of a row over unfastened speech.

For some, the 31-month prison time period imposed for inciting race hate was once “tyrannical”, whilst one commentator stated Connolly was once a “hostage of the British state”, and every other that she was once “clearly a political prisoner”.

Court of Appeal judges, on the other hand, this week refused to cut back her sentence.

Asked about her case in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated sentencing was once “a matter for the courts” and that whilst he was once “strongly in favour of free speech”, he was once “equally against incitement to violence”.

Rupert Lowe, the impartial MP for Great Yarmouth, stated the placement was once “morally repugnant” and added: “This is not the Britain I want to live in.”

Others stated her supporters sought after a “right to be racist”.

Warning: This record accommodates racist and discriminatory language

In July remaining yr, caused via a false hearsay that an unlawful immigrant was once chargeable for the homicide of 3 women at a dance workshop in Southport, Connolly posted on-line calling for “mass deportation now”, including “set fire to all the… hotels [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care”.

Connolly, then a 41-year-old Northampton childminder, added: “If that makes me racist, so be it.”

At the time she had about 9,000 fans on X. Her message was once reposted 940 instances and seen 310,000 instances, sooner than she deleted it 3 and a part hours later.

In October she was once jailed after admitting inciting racial hatred.

Three attraction courtroom judges this week dominated the 31-month sentence was once now not “manifestly excessive”.

Stephen O’Grady, a prison officer with the Free Speech Union (FSU), stated the sentence gave the impression “rather steep in proportion to the offence”.

His organisation has labored with Connolly’s circle of relatives since November and funded her attraction.

Mr O’Grady stated Connolly “wasn’t some lager-fuelled hooligan on the streets” and pointed to her being a mom of a 12-year-old daughter, who had additionally misplaced a son when he was once simply 19 months outdated.

He stated there was once a “difference between howling racist abuse at somebody in the street and throwing bricks at the police” and “sending tweets, which were perhaps regrettable but wouldn’t have the same immediate effect”.

Connolly’s case was once additionally “emblematic of wider concerns” about “increasing police interest in people’s online activity”, Mr O’Grady stated.

The FSU had won “a slew of queries” from individuals who had been “very unsure” about “the limits of what they can they can say online”, he stated, and who feared “the police are going to come knocking on the door”.

“There’s an immense amount of police overreach,” he added.

He cited the instance of a retired particular constable detained after difficult a pro-Palestine supporter on-line, a case the FSU took on.

Responding to Mr O’Grady’s declare, a National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesperson stated that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act “protects a person’s right to hold opinions and to express them freely” and that officials won coaching concerning the act.

They added: “It remains imperative that officers and staff continue to receive training commensurate with the demands placed upon them.”

After the attraction was once pushed aside, Connolly’s husband, Conservative the town councillor Raymond Connolly, stated she was once “a good person and not a racist” and had “paid a very high price for making a mistake”.

Her native Labour MP, Northampton South’s Mike Reader, stated he had “big sympathy” for Connolly and her daughter, however there was once no justification for accusing the police of “overreach”.

He stated: “I want the police to protect us online and I want the police to protect us on the streets and they should be doing it equally.”

It was once a “fallacy” and “misunderstanding of the world” if other people didn’t “believe that the online space is as dangerous for people as the streets,” he added.

“We’re all attached to our phones; we’re all influenced by what we see, and I think it’s right that the police took action here.”

In his sentencing remarks, Judge Melbourne Inman stated Connolly’s offence was once “category A” – that means “high culpability” – and that each the prosecution and her personal barrister agreed she “intended to incite serious violence”.

For Reader, this confirmed “they weren’t arguing this was a silly tweet and she should be let off – her own counsel agreed this was a serious issue”.

At her attraction, Connolly claimed that whilst she permitted she meant to fan the flames of racial hatred, she at all times denied seeking to incite violence.

But Lord Justice Holroyde stated in a judgement this week the proof “clearly shows that she was well aware of what she was admitting”.

Sentencing tips for the offence point out a kick off point of 3 years’ custody.

While the prosecution argued the offence was once irritated via its timing, “particularly sensitive social climate”, the defence argued the tweet have been posted sooner than any violence had began, and that Connolly had “subsequently attempted to stop the violence after it had erupted”.

The judgement additionally highlighted different on-line posts from Connolly that the judges stated indicated her “view about illegal immigrants”.

Four days sooner than the Southport murders, she spoke back to a video shared via far-right activist Tommy Robinson appearing a black guy being tackled to the bottom for allegedly appearing a intercourse act in public.

Connolly posted: “Somalian, I guess. Loads of them,” adopted via a vomiting emoji.

On 3 August, responding to an anti-racism protest in Manchester, she wrote: “I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee.

“Maybe signal a waiver to mention they do not thoughts if it is one among their circle of relatives that will get attacked, butchered, raped and so forth, via unvetted criminals.”

The FSU said she was likely to be eligible for release from August, after serving 40% of her sentence.

Some, including Mr O’Grady, argued her jail term was longer than punishments handed to criminals perceived to have committed “some distance worse” crimes.

Reform UK’s Mark Arnull, the leader of West Northamptonshire Council, said it was not for him “to cross touch upon sentences or certainly talk about person circumstances”.

But he added: “It’s fairly simple to grasp why constituents in West Northamptonshire query the proportionality of Lucy’s sentence after they see offenders in different high-profile and critical circumstances stroll unfastened and steer clear of prison.”

The issue for writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu was that “those that have dedicated worse crimes” should “spend extra time in prison, now not much less time for Lucy Connolly”.

Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: “It’s now not ‘freedom of speech with out responsibility’. She did not tweet one thing that harm any person’s emotions; she tweeted pronouncing any person will have to die.”

In her view, those making Connolly a “flag-bearer or champion” for free speech were asking for “the proper to be racist”.

Free speech advocate Mr O’Grady said “no-one is arguing for an unfettered ‘correct’ to incite racial hatred”.

Connolly’s case was once about “proportionality”, he added, and “the sense that on-line speech is an increasing number of being punished very harshly in comparison to different offending… equivalent to in-person violent dysfunction”.