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.
Karens been lying fr centuries but becuase middle aged white woman can do no wrong, many people got killed or imprisoned over it.
Only now has society admitted that they lying a lot for stupid reasons like racism or just BC fuck you due to camera phones…
Similar to the story with cops. About time botha team held accountable for exploiting the system.
Good, fuck Nazis.
While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth
This, I don’t like. If you - the newspaper, the means of information - are not sure about a name you should really refrain from using it.
It would be not the first time people get their lives ruined by some careless journalist because of a namesake or just an error.
It’s not that different from “spreading rumors”.
That aside, in this case, it is probably a rumor from an inside source. Still. Not a fan.
deleted by creator
This. There was reports days before her arrest with her real name, it’s been known
I’ve also said this before and I’ll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.
Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don’t think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.
*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.
Meanwhile here in Sweden, everyone’s criminal record is public, and even available to search online. Unless the crime is something minor punished with a fine. It’s really ridiculous, everything is publicly available online, like addresses, phone numbers, the cars or pets people own. Unless you have a protected identity, it’s all available to everyone online. I tried to apply for a protected identity on account of being a public servant that is involved in making decisions many people very much dislike. But I couldn’t provide a concrete threat so it was denied. It’s like the system is still geared towards pre-internet times. The system itself in fact doxxes every resident in the country.
Oh man, we need some of that shit in the US. Arrest these right wing media nut jobs and their Jewish laser bullshit.
They arrested the guy too. And I’m all for it.
Careful what you wish for. Our freedom of speech is a pretty big thing we have. You want the guy who tweeted that Vance was a couch fucker to be thrown in prison or some shit?
Freedom of speech should not equal to the freedom of consequences. You should be able to say whatever you want, but when you lie with intent of causing harm, you should be accountable.
UK has freedom of speech, but there are limits. Been a Nazi is not covered.
As Chomsky said, “That’s not freedom of speech”
In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
(I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)
In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I believe it is. But if you don’t that’s your belief, but at least admit you therefore do not believe in freedom of speech.
I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.
Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.
Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I don’t trust anyone to evaluate that is the problem.
If the hard right propaganda machine isn’t shut down we will deal with the risk of a fascist takeover every four years for the rest of our country’s existence.
Free speech is not absolute, and the ‘fighting words’ precedent certainly applies to fascist instigators.
You know what I don’t give a flying fuck about? Her being a mother of three. Why is this sympathy baiting bullshit in an article about a woman who helped incite violent racist riots all over the country?
Maybe she should have thought about her kids before being a conservative.
Spofforth, 55, posted the false claim at 4.49pm on Monday, July 29, the day of the attack, saying: ‘Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.’
Not defending this woman, but as an American, the thought of being arrested for lying on the internet (or repeating a rumor, as she claims) seems insane.
Spreading outrageous lies that result in harassment and violence is clearly not something to tolerate.
The US is not a good example to bring up if you want to argue it is fine to allow it.
Allowing others’ speech is the default. The ethical question is where we draw the line in silencing or punishing someone’s speech.
In the US, the line would generally be specific threats or calls for violence. Someone being hateful or spreading awful rumors online could be a lawsuit by the wronged party, but you aren’t going to have cops show up at your door with handcuffs.
Allowing others’ speech is the default
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.
Yes it is.
It’s morally wrong, but people who lie on the internet are not criminals.
It absolutely isn’t.
If a sales person sells you a faulty car claiming it works, it’s a fraud, not a freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech covers opinions and ideas, not factual lies.
Actions should have consequences. Her lie set of at least a week of needless chaos and destruction. It gave racist shit-heads an excuse (in their minds at least) to vandalize property, attack police and counter-protesters, and terrorize innocent people.
If she was the person who originated this lie then I hope they throw the book at her. If she just publicized a lie she heard from elsewhere she should still be punished, but probably not as much.
Freedom of speech should not equate to impunity for spreading egregious lies and hate-mongering. We should be coming down harder on people here in America who deliberately spread lies with bad faith intentions. Skin color, religion, etc should have any sway in when we apply such actions and when we don’t.
ETA: I didn’t downvote you, by the way. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I feel like your point is a gateway to deeper discussion.
She literally ended with “If this is true”
There’s a logical reasoning thing called modus ponens (it has a latin name because it’s not exactly new). It goes
A. If A then B.
Hence B.That’s exactly how she called for all hell to break loose. You can’t claim that you didn’t mean B when you say “A. If A then B.” It’s just that A was false and “If A then B” was also false. Nevertheless, a lie-ridden far right call to violence over the murder of innocent children is what it was, and it was heeded by the far right nut jobs who rioted over the issue, targetting the immigration lawyers that had nothing to do with the deaths of the children until she posted the lie. She incited violence. Jail. Good riddance.
Keep your far right racist lying incitements to violence to yourselves, or you’ll end up in prison, fascists! You’re not welcome in the UK and you never have been. Thousands of ordinary people counter protested against hundreds of racist agitators. Good.
But she was saying if A. As in, questioning A…
No she wasn’t. She already unequivocally stated A.
My friend has a UK driver’s licence.
If she has a UK driver’s licence, she must be at least 17.
Now, can you honestly claim I’m sceptical about whether she has a driver’s licence or whether she’s over 16?
Please Google modus ponens before coming back again. She even used it in the classical form.
“If that’s true” pretty clearly implies skepticism. She wasn’t stating a theorem. She was conversing.
You’re not prepared to change your mind, you’d rather contradict literally thousands of years of logical thinking. 2+2=3. Got it. I really really wasted my time talking to you.
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.
Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.
thought of being arrested for lying on the internet
Why? If you spreaded false rumor which nearly resulted in a couple hundred people being burned alive, you 100% should be arrested. Words have consequences.
The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.
If her tweet hadn’t gone viral, would it have still been a crime? That’s an unsettling way to determine whether someone is a criminal who needs to be locked up or not.
The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.
You appear somehow ignorant how the law works. It is about adult humans being able to predict consequences of their actions.
If you are travelling at speed (but still below the speed limit) on an icy road and you kill someone, you go to prison for a long time as you should be able to predict you may kill someone.
If you shoot a projectile and it goes beyond the boundaries of your land, you may end up in jail again - you should be able to predict the projectile may go beyond the boundary.
She should have been able to predict the consequences of her spreading lies.
Adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
As much as this behavior is appalling, blaming it on one individual is absurd. Social networks provide incentives to lie and stir people up, it can even be profitable. As long as that’s the reality, there will be lies that cause riots.
Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.
Social media is a huge fucking problem. Maybe not as serious as climate change, but people are dying because of a few bad faith actors. Something needs to be done but I’m not sure what.
This is just the current tech’s version of a timeless problem, though. People have always been able to just say shit and cause problems because others believed them.
Examples:
Emmett Till was lynched back in the 1950s due to a lying white woman, becoming an iconic part of the civil rights movement.
In the late 1930s, the War of the Worlds story freaked a bunch of people out when it was first broadcast.
In 1897, Mark Twain’s death was falsely reported enough that he publicly commented about it.
There’s also the Great Moon Hoax in 1835.
William Anderton is a famous example of fake news from the 1700s.
we’ve even got fake news in ancient Rome involving Octavian, Marc Antony, and Cleopatra.
People will always be doing this dumb shit, whether it’s a town crier, a printing press, or a social media site.
The key is to exercise critical thinking and promote its use to everyone.
I think it’s also regulation and a legal system. Anarchy doesn’t work. It’s a Tragedy Of The Commons problem. It’s always ruined by a few ass holes. The Commons need a mechanism to weed itself. I.e. Rules and enforcement of those rules.
Problem is Xitter is a centralized closed monopoly thing owned by a crazy near trillionaire. The Commons has no control of it. It’s a diseased setup.
Fun fact, the tragedy of the commons is a fictitious construct invented by British nobility to justify their taking ownership of commonly held land
Surprisingly balanced and civil discussions in these comments. Super proud to be here 💪 this would not happen elsewhere
She’s a millionaire, so not a lot of support for her.
I wish that was really the case.
You actually raise a very interesting point.
Is this discussion so civilized because people here are civilized or just because it alligns with the majority of lemmys political views? Would it look any different if it went against wealthy people instead of immigrants?
to be fair, wealthy people aren’t routinely discriminated against, they literally are some of the most powerful people.
Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie. I do not want to follow the example being set in Europe. This is the road that leads to authoritarian rule. Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion. When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal? Will different truths exist in red and blue states? City and rural? No thank you.
real big “why can’t I yell fire in this building?” vibes.
Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie.
And yet, it’s there. Just as it is in defamation law.
Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion[?]
A jury of your peers and the Public Order Act 1986.
The US has free speech. Apart from all the exceptions it carves out and designates not protected speech, including but not limited to incitement, threats and harassment, sedition, and obscenity. Obscenity in particular was famously ‘defined’ for a while as “I know it when I see it”. So why draw the line at hate speech?
Is it not a weird state of affairs when saying “X is a paedo” is legally actionable but saying “trans people are all paedos and X is trans” isn’t, even week when X’s house gets burned down either way?
When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal?
Sure, the UK parliament could pass a law saying criticising the prime minister is now illegal. The courts will inevitably issue a declaration of incompatibility with human rights law, but the government, in theory, could ignore it. If the public swallows it. But there’s nothing really stopping that happening in the US either. Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the president, and since the president gets to pick the judges, it could almost certainly come under the sedition exception to the first amendment if the president really wanted it to pass. If the public swallows it.
And that’s what it comes down to at the end of the day. Whether or not the public swallows it. For all the US right wing likes to harp on about freeze peach that sure doesn’t seem to apply if you want to say something bad about America or use the word cisgender. Do you really think the American public is much less likely to support authoritarianism than the British public?
why do people pretend there isn’t or shouldn’t be any human element in legal situations? who decides what’s free speech or a lie? how is this even a question? who decides what’s a murder or self defense? who decides what’s assault or not?
this is why there’s a court system. you can’t automate law.
