746
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

The woman accused of being first to spread the fake rumours about the Southport killer which sparked nationwide riots has been arrested.

Racist riots spread across the country after misinformation spread on social media claiming the fatal stabbing was carried out by Ali Al-Shakati, believed to be a fictitious name, a Muslim aslyum seeker who was on an MI6 watchlist.

A 55-year-old woman from Chester has now been arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred, and false communication. She remains in police custody.

While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth, a mother-of-three and the managing director of a clothing company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I appreciate the discussion. I knew this wouldn't be a popular take and almost deleted it before commenting.

Again, I think spreading lies on the internet is an appalling thing to do, but I just wanted to share my disbelief that someone could be arrested for it. Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone's grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.

I know it's tempting to want bad things to happen to people we don't like, but I think situations like this are a test of our ethics and values.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Again, I think spreading lies on the internet is an appalling thing to do, but I just wanted to share my disbelief that someone could be arrested for it.

How is it really different from starting a white supremacy group and calling to 'expel immigrants' in posters around a city? The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online. Do we really need to allow that to be okay?

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online.

I'd consider another big difference that one was a tweet with misinformation and the other is a call to action to "expel" people. The tweet is appalling but hardly terrorism.

[-] SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Why? It was obviously a lie to rile people up. Why shouldn't it be considered cyber terrorism?

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone's grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.

If only. Wouldn't that be fucking grand.

The amount of harm and loss of live those stupid things lead to has no place in society and people should be held responsible for it.

[-] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Quite a dystopian world you're pining for.

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 6 points 1 month ago

Damn a world where I'm free from baseless hate being openly spread.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think the problem is - who decides what speech qualifies and is arrestable?

What if it's Trump? Or congressional Republicans?

What if they claim that talking negative about Trump is hate speech and is arrestable? Or saying Vance fucks couches?

[-] gedhrel@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I take it that you can see a distinction between "Vance fucks couches" and "burn those people in their hotel". They are not the same thing.

If the distinction is hard to determine - that's why there's a judicial process.

[-] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Except no one said "burn those people in their hotel".

That's kind of the point being made by all of the dissenters in this thread.

[-] gedhrel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Do you have a source for her saying that? I haven't heard any reports that she did.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It's a paraphrase. Read the tweet, not as if you're her defence lawyer, but ask yourself if a reasonable person would interpret it as a racist argument that violence was justified.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It doesn't sound even remotely like what her tweet said. That's not a paraphrase.

If you're/they're going to use quotes of things to compare whether each should be free speech, your quote should at least resemble the actual speech used.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This isn't the usa and she doesn't have the absolute right to say anything she likes, and if her tweet leads to rioting, she's guilty of inciting violence. Where do you think the false idea that the child murderer was an asylum seeker and violence should happen as a result came from, and what makes you think you're a better investigator than the British police?

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Wtf are you talking about? Did you follow this conversation at all...?

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm talking about what her tweet said and why it's a crime in the UK. What did you think we were talking about?

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm on your side. Without a direct call to action that breaks some laws, the idea that you can be arrested for "false communication" is straight up dystopian to me.

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
746 points (97.7% liked)

World News

38554 readers
2614 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS