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

Lucy Connolly’s 51-word on-line publish within the wake of the Southport killings led her to jail and into the centre of a row over free speech.

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

Courtroom of Enchantment judges, nonetheless, this week refused to scale back her sentence.

Requested about her case in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said sentencing was “a matter for the courts” and that whereas he was “strongly in favour of free speech”, he was “equally towards incitement to violence”.

Rupert Lowe, the impartial MP for Nice Yarmouth, mentioned the scenario was “morally repugnant” and added: “This isn’t the Britain I wish to stay in.”

Others mentioned her supporters needed a “proper to be racist”.

Warning: This report comprises racist and discriminatory language

In July final yr, prompted by a false hearsay that an unlawful immigrant was liable for the murder of three girls at a dance workshop in Southport, Connolly posted on-line calling for “mass deportation now”, including “set fireplace to all of the… accommodations [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care”.

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

On the time she had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 occasions and seen 310,000 occasions, earlier than she deleted it three and a half hours later.

In October she was jailed after admitting inciting racial hatred.

Three attraction courtroom judges this week ruled the 31-month sentence was not “manifestly extreme”.

Stephen O’Grady, a authorized officer with the Free Speech Union (FSU), mentioned the sentence appeared “reasonably steep in proportion to the offence”.

His organisation has labored with Connolly’s household since November and funded her attraction.

Mr O’Grady mentioned 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pointed to her being a mom of a 12-year-old daughter, who had additionally misplaced a son when he was simply 19 months outdated.

He mentioned there was a “distinction between howling racist abuse at anyone on the street and throwing bricks on the police” and “sending tweets, which had been maybe regrettable however would not have the identical instant impact”.

Connolly’s case was additionally “emblematic of wider considerations” about “growing police curiosity in folks’s on-line exercise”, Mr O’Grady mentioned.

The FSU had obtained “a slew of queries” from individuals who had been “very not sure” about “the boundaries of what they’ll they’ll say on-line”, he mentioned, and who feared “the police are going to come back knocking on the door”.

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

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

Responding to Mr O’Grady’s declare, a Nationwide Police Chiefs’ Council spokesperson mentioned that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act “protects an individual’s proper to carry opinions and to precise them freely” and that officers obtained coaching in regards to the act.

They added: “It stays crucial that officers and workers proceed to obtain coaching commensurate with the calls for positioned upon them.”

After the attraction was dismissed, Connolly’s husband, Conservative city councillor Raymond Connolly, mentioned she was “a superb individual and never a racist” and had “paid a really excessive worth for making a mistake”.

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

He mentioned: “I would like the police to guard us on-line and I would like the police to guard us on the streets and they need to be doing it equally.”

It was a “fallacy” and “misunderstanding of the world” if folks didn’t “imagine that the web area is as harmful for folks because the streets,” he added.

“We’re all hooked up to our telephones; we’re all influenced by what we see, and I feel it is proper that the police took motion right here.”

In his sentencing remarks, Choose Melbourne Inman mentioned Connolly’s offence was “class A” – that means “excessive culpability” – and that each the prosecution and her personal barrister agreed she “meant to incite severe violence”.

For Reader, this confirmed “they weren’t arguing this was a foolish tweet and she or he must be let off – her personal counsel agreed this was a severe subject”.

At her attraction, Connolly claimed that whereas she accepted she meant to fire up racial hatred, she at all times denied making an attempt to incite violence.

However Lord Justice Holroyde mentioned in a judgement this week the proof “clearly reveals that she was nicely conscious of what she was admitting”.

Sentencing tips for the offence point out a place to begin of three years’ custody.

Whereas the prosecution argued the offence was aggravated by its timing, “notably delicate social local weather”, the defence argued the tweet had been posted earlier than any violence had began, and that Connolly had “subsequently tried to cease the violence after it had erupted”.

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

4 days earlier than the Southport murders, she responded to a video shared by far-right activist Tommy Robinson displaying a black man being tackled to the bottom for allegedly performing a intercourse act in public.

Connolly posted: “Somalian, I suppose. A great deal of them,” adopted by a vomiting emoji.

On 3 August, responding to an anti-racism protest in Manchester, she wrote: “I take it they’ll all be in line to enroll to deal with an unlawful boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee.

“Perhaps signal a waiver to say they do not thoughts if it is one in every of their household that will get attacked, butchered, raped and many others, by unvetted criminals.”

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

Some, together with Mr O’Grady, argued her jail time period was longer than punishments handed to criminals perceived to have dedicated “far worse” crimes.

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

However he added: “It is comparatively straightforward to grasp why constituents in West Northamptonshire query the proportionality of Lucy’s sentence after they see offenders in different high-profile and severe instances stroll free and keep away from jail.”

The difficulty for author and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu was that “those that have dedicated worse crimes” ought to “spend extra time in jail, not much less time for Lucy Connolly”.

Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: “It isn’t ‘freedom of speech with out accountability’. She did not tweet one thing that damage somebody’s emotions; she tweeted saying somebody ought to die.”

In her view, these making Connolly a “flag-bearer or champion” at no cost speech had been asking for “the appropriate to be racist”.

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

Connolly’s case was about “proportionality”, he added, and “the sense that on-line speech is more and more being punished very harshly in comparison with different offending… corresponding to in-person violent dysfunction”.