Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt of court

I am quite on the extreme side of freedom of speech mainly because I think control of speech impacts the vulnerable the most. So I think the control of speech results in worse outcomes than most speech that people can produce. Those who want to control speech tend to be very much part of the echo chamber that you describe.

Jane43

Primrose53

Sitting with popcorn just waiting to see whether the Labour MP thug gets jailed. He really should be.

There are sentencing guidelines, people aren’t sentenced to satisfy popular opinion. If it is a first offence of either ABH or GBH he may get a fine and/or a community order. If not a first offence there may be jail time according to the severity of the assault.

I get that but surely someone who knocks someone to the ground and carries on while he is on the ground deserves to go to prison more than people who write some words on social media that others disagree with.

He is very lucky that the man he hit did not lay there with a smashed skull or worse.

people who write some words on social media that others disagree with

Here's a little taster for you

“Islam is a cancer that needs eradicating … clear them all off to the desert”

TR is a disgrace as is anybody who seeks to defend him.

We are not defending TR we are trying to have discussions about complex issues.

TR writes some horrible things on the internet, as jasper’s example shows, but I’m struggling with the idea that words are worse than actual physical violence.

jasper16

*people who write some words on social media that others disagree with*

Here's a little taster for you

“Islam is a cancer that needs eradicating … clear them all off to the desert”

TR is a disgrace as is anybody who seeks to defend him.

Well. According to Galaxy, restricting people ability to say things like that will have an adverse effect on the vulnerable. I don't quite understand why...

Primrose53

Jane43

Primrose53

Sitting with popcorn just waiting to see whether the Labour MP thug gets jailed. He really should be.

There are sentencing guidelines, people aren’t sentenced to satisfy popular opinion. If it is a first offence of either ABH or GBH he may get a fine and/or a community order. If not a first offence there may be jail time according to the severity of the assault.

I get that but surely someone who knocks someone to the ground and carries on while he is on the ground deserves to go to prison more than people who write some words on social media that others disagree with.

He is very lucky that the man he hit did not lay there with a smashed skull or worse.

But, Jane43 that can’t be true as quite a few people who threw something or pushed someone/ hit someone or jumped on a car and damaged it were jailed recently in the riots in different locations.I read that some were first offences.

madalene

TR writes some horrible things on the internet, as jasper’s example shows, but I’m struggling with the idea that words are worse than actual physical violence.

What if we were to substitute 'Judaism' for the word 'Islam'. Would that make any difference?

I agree with madalene and Galaxy in that words/opinions are just that, however unpleasant they are, unless they are literally inciting others to do violence to a group of people.
Saying ‘clear them off to the desert’ isn’t the worst that he’s said surely?
He’s a horrible individual and has a big following so incitement is always on the cards but free speech does matter too unless a line is well and truly crossed.

It would still be horrible Maizie, but not quite as horrible as murdering 1200 people in their beds early on a Saturday morning.

MaizieD

madalene

TR writes some horrible things on the internet, as jasper’s example shows, but I’m struggling with the idea that words are worse than actual physical violence.

What if we were to substitute 'Judaism' for the word 'Islam'. Would that make any difference?

No, not to me, I’ve heard worse!

madalene

It would still be horrible Maizie, but not quite as horrible as murdering 1200 people in their beds early on a Saturday morning.

I tried to ignore that comment, but murdering some 40,000 plus people in revenge is even more horrible.

Because that is generally the way control of speech pans out. You think that it will always be who you see as the 'good guys' who get to control it. It wont be.

Robinsons arrival on Friday 25th and handing himself in was all choreographed in timing with the long planned far right "Unite the Kingdom" rally in London on Saturday 26th. Thousands turned out to watch the Robinson (and friends) film, "Lawfare".

And of course, there were opportunities to call for "free Tommy Robinson" as if he were a martyr.

"Lawfare" is "against tyranny" and yes it's partly about social Media posts and arrests made on the basis of violent and racist deaths threats during the riots and in general. It's apparently OK to not just threaten in this way but organise violent riots.

Words do matter when they incite and plan and give directions go where to commit violence, when they directly suggest "bomb the mosques with the adults in them", and when individuals names and addresses as suggested targets for attack are given out.

The limits to free speech is a philosophical debate that goes beyond the likes of S Y-L.

I believe in free speech, in the sense that I would hate to live somewhere where people could be jailed (or worse) for saying they disagree with the (any) government, or that a law is wrong etc.

But even if I think a law is wrong, I accept that laws have to be obeyed (although demonstrating against them is, and should remain perfectly legal), and incitement to hatred is against the law, as is incitement to violence. I don't think that posting a guide to making and detonating bombs is ok, for instance - not that (AFAIK) Y-L has done that - and it is not ok to libel individuals like the Syrian boy in Y-L's 'documentary' (aka propaganda video), or to encourage people to set fire to hostels with people inside them, particularly during a riot.

Where the principle of free speech should intersect with the principle of the rule of law is an interesting debating point, but realistically the law has to prevail, I think.

I support those peoples right to march in the same way as I support the right of those who march in support of Palestine. I have said this before but I have been pro choice all my life but I completely opposed the ban that some universities had on having pro life stalls at their events. You cant support the right to speak of just those you agree with.

Yes, they have a right to march. But Y-L does not have a right to libel a Syrian boy, and counsellors' wives do not have a right to incite violence and murder online.

I support the right to march as well. But Tommy Robinsons'organisation Urban Scoop is a deliberate, complex,
planned attempt to incite hate specifically against Muslims in the UK.

"Tommy Robinson’s plan to use Sikhs, Jews and Hindus to turn people in UK against Islam
The far-right figure tried to garner support from religious groups and communities to support anti-Muslim rallies"

inews.co.uk/news/tommy-robinson-plan-sikhs-jews-hindus-turn-uk-against-islam-3241786?srsltid=AfmBOoo18CpyNbfbWWNq2qfKnB4V-ta0Q3oYPulM0q9ZxtI2szvAkNhB

I hope you can access the rest of the article which opened for me (the I is usually behind a paywall) as it details how Robinson plans to do this.

here is some:

"Details of meetings held by Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, were passed to i revealing the inner strategy of the far-right figure’s attempts to canvas support for a campaign against British Muslims.

The details obtained by i expose how Robinson tried to garner support from varying religious groups and communities in the UK, co-ordinated with far-right influencers, and mobilised football hooligans in an attempt to launch anti-Muslim rallies across the country."

"The details of meetings seen by i show how Robinson had a clear plan to use his large social media following to spread his anti-Muslim message and laid out plans to co-ordinate with other influential right-wing accounts to spread promotional videos to millions.

Robinson said he was in contact with a number of controversial figures who would help generate support for his rallies including Andrew Tate, Katie Hopkins, and Laurence Fox.

At Robinson’s July “patriot” march in Trafalgar Square, Mr Fox led a crowd of thousands towards a counter demo by Stand Up to Racism. Live-streaming on X, Mr Fox told the camera with a smile, “This is our community”, while protesters in the background chanted, “We want our country back”.

During private meetings about future rallies, Robinson insisted that any promotional video would not mention Muslims specifically, but rather call people to march in support of British values stating that the UK is under attack.

He also detailed how his media team, including three full-time employees, would specifically look for non-white faces at rallies to use in his promotional videos in a bid to join communities against British Muslims.

If only Trump would get the same treatment! Perhaps they could go in a cell together and compare notes of what dire people they are.

When people were jailed for encouraging the rioters, people here were saying it was just ",hurty words".

Even the mps wife who suggested burning down buildings with muslims inside them.

Does it depend who says the "hurty words"?

'Hurty words' 🙄

That's like calling aggravated burglary 'pilfering', or torture 'making sore'.

Yep.
Strange how it depends who says them.
Not that I'm defending Robinson, by the way.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind...

With a bit of luck, they might lose the key....

Please read what the group Hope Not Hate investigate! Then you will have a greater understanding of the danger TR and his like pose! TR was due in court but left the UK the night before the hearing and turned up in Cyprus on holiday! He owes £100k in libel fees!! This latest court hearing and subsequent sentence had definitely been orchestrated for full effect!
His right to freedom of speech incited hatred and resentment plus encourages violence! Do not underestimate his influence

Tere are a lot of very dangerous men out there, especially on the internet, (AKA) Robinson and those like Tate.... We aren't the demographic that follows them online so are happily unaware of them and the ideas they promote until one of them is splattered across the news and hear more about their horrendous mysogny, hate and so on. Good he's answering for his vile behaviour. Sad it's a shorter sentence than some honest and well intentioned climate change protesters got for trying to save the planet.