If the ease with which the Covid lockdowns were instituted told us anything, it was that people could be panicked into throwing away basic freedoms with astonishing ease. It seems that this lesson has not been lost on the British government, which is currently busy prosecuting a plethora of victimless crimes with relative impunity.
A judge has jailed a “keyboard warrior” for posting an online message saying “blow the mosque up with the adults in it” during the riots.
When sentencing Sweeney, Judge Steven Everett, the Recorder of Chester, said: “You should have been looking at the news and media with horror like every right-minded person. Instead, you chose to take part in stirring up hatred.
“You were part of a Facebook account which had 5,100 members. You had a big audience.
“You threatened a mosque, wherever it was. It truly was a terrible threat.
“So-called keyboard warriors like you must learn to take responsibility for your disgusting and inflammatory language.”
Canada and Britain would make Orwell puke.
Too much of it is based on opinion.. Some overzealous judge is doing law of the land stuff.. The expectation that people are “not going to be pissed off” when 3 little girls get “executed” is, crossing the line..
Its no secret who did it and why..
Ok….help me out here. I’m not seeing the controversy. This guy documented:
“blow the mosque up with the adults in it”
That is a threat of violence and injury. It’s not just illegal in the UK. It’s illegal in the US an has been for many, many years. Phrasing is important on a “Terroristic Threat” crime. For example, if he said:
“I wouldn’t be too terribly disappointed if someone blew up the mosque with the adults in it.” It is not actionable. But, an outright threat of damage, violence and injury is actionable. And, IMO should be. So set me straight on this. What am I missing?
Orson,
I agree.
Keyboard warriors should learn the fine art of subtlety and satire.
Look to historical approaches such as Swift, Orwell, and others of that “pen/sword” ilk.
Hell, even Homer Simpson!
Otherwise, argue from an informed, principled and defensible platform, such as Douglas Murray does.
Oh, it’s the lose with dignity brigade.
“Oh, it’s the lose with dignity brigade.”
________________________________________________
I don’t think you absorbed the point. Here, try this one:
“I am going to find your daughter and rape her to teach you a lesson.” (this is actionable)
“Someone should find your daughter and rape her to teach you a lesson.” (not actionable)
Now, I’m guessing if you have a daughter, both statements would raise the hair on the back of your neck. Only one of those statements is against the law in the UK, the US, and Canada. Dignity has nothing to do with it. Semantics, on the other hand, does indeed guide the law in this regard. Now, whether the law is applied equally and blindly to all parties making these statements is a totally different topic altogether. But, if you are going to make an argument of “foreign invasion” or “Shariah courts”, you better know what the hell you’re talking about and not base your arguments on emotion.
Tell me you can’t meme, without telling me you can’t meme.
Now, whether the law is applied equally and blindly to all parties making these statements is a totally different topic altogether
I don’t think so ……..
If it isn’t applied equally , and some seem above it. The law doesn’t mean a damn thing when it comes to the heart of it.
The elites are trying to hold the foundation together, while pissing on values that kept it together in the first place.
You could use the emotion argument 15 years ago maybe.
But here we are , and there are lots of “terrible” things I wouldn’t mind a politician actually trying to stop instead of covering up for their stinking ineptitude, greed, hypocracy, and maniacal disdain for the useful individual with some skin in the game
Things change soon or there is no coming back , for us or our kids.
If it isn’t too late already.
Whatever, Allen.
That’s a comeback for the ages.
I can’t believe I’ve been shut out again!
All I’m trying to say is that violence isn’t the solution.
I’d say more, but I’m afraid I’ve already offended the AI moderating this board.
me too. lve had to dice up posts countless times narrowing down the offensive phrase.
thats when cro backwards kept popping up for some AI driven reason.
too bad katykins doesnt add a link to the blog with some of the common filter ‘rules’ but l think shes a bot too.
Violence is the solution.
It worked in Romania.
At this point pacifism = surrender.
fc
Bok buk book buk, wouldn’t post for you?
Grow a set, and maybe posting will improve!
Now GYM, that’s just a cheep insult!
Well it is very simple, he is a patriot opposing the invasion. The UK Shariah courts and the enfor(ers support the invaders. UK judiciary, enfor(ers and the ruling class are actively replacing the working class Britons with turd world savages and do not believe that working class Britons should have a say about being replaced. In the end this is all this is about. If that is too extreme for you, too bad.
If you think I am wrong then kindly explain this: https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1823475599874429238 you see, when enfor(ement is one sided, arbitrary and used stickily as a tool of political oppression, the argument “that is the law” looses all value.
/
“What am I missing?”
Saying “close in with and destroy the enemy” is appropriate, no matter how you paraphrase it.
The difference between the UK and the US, is that the US requires it to rise to the level of “true threat”, whereas the UK just seems to want to prosecute everything that goes against the protected.
(Kagan made a mess of the True Threat doctrine, which previously somewhat required a perceived (by the intended victim) that the person was capable of carrying out the threat, now only requires “recklessness” on behalf of the speaker)
To save the UK, they will have to drive the invaders into the sea.
That means either make them leave by chasing them away, or killing them.
The way the comment is phrased it’s an imperative rather than a statement of intent, which takes it out of the realm of “uttering threats” and into the realm of “incitement”. And the law on that is messy as hell in every Western country.
You’re not missing anything. Remember, this is the Bezmenov strategy: divide the populace into antagonistic groups and set them against each other so the target country tears itself apart and can’t defend itself.
In the same way that the BLM makes meaningful police reform impossible, two-tier policing makes reforming “uttering threats” law impossible.
It’s hard to tell from the information here if this was anything more than mere advocacy. To be inciting, he would have to be in direct and conscious contact with the actors. The judge seems to assume that, since it’s Facebook, anybody could see it, therefore everybody saw it, therefore he was co-operating directly with the actors, and that’s transparently ridiculous. Posting “burn it down” on Facebook is the exact equivalent to hanging a “burn it down sign” out your window. No passing stranger will see it and burn anything down; and if he does burn anything down, you can be certain that such was always his intention and the message was superfluous. It can only have effect if you’ve arranged with the actors in advance for it to have an effect, and it’s that arrangement, not the message, that constitutes the illegal participation in the crime.
I can’t tell from the coverage here if the judge found such clear participation or not, but if he didn’t then it’s a bogus judgment. Of course, whether it’s just to nail a man to the wall for participating in a violent gang, in a country in which armed violent gangs are the preferred agency of government and roam and rule the streets, is a different question.
Forget it, Jake. It’s the UK.
Shariatown, coming to a theater of operation near you.
The person that got 15 months in prison was a 53 year old house wife.
And you’d have a point if the law was applied equally.
But for some reason I’m betting it isn’t.
Progs hate just the same …… But they lick the right boots, among other things.
these mindless “elite?” will be defending the invading hordes while they are burning Westminster Abby to the ground …… remember the french cathedral?
MOAR. FASTER.
RNrn
Not so much.. Even though you are clearly unable / unwilling to carry out your Keyboard threats.. Unsavory stuff..
The law must take into account that other people will come to the same conclusion without your help.. Even if..
Ultimately and uncomfortably.. Its the governments fault for seeding the ground for such things to happen.. Both the crime and response.. Whatever goals they have they can not ignore the consequences of their actions.. Yet they do..
Western governments are out of bounds and prone to overreaction these days..
The man has more balls than Douglas Murry, Rowan Atkinson and Nigel Farage combined.
Good for him.
Now we just need a few million more like him.
Two-tier church burnings are a REAL thing, then?
The judge threatens freedom where ever that exists.
All hail The State of Thuggery.
Tyranny only ever ends in one way. Once it sets in, it is often fatal for both tyrants and a commoners alike.
Is there a day that goes by when an Imam doesn’t say something as “threatening” with impunity? In context, this individual didn’t commit to do carry anything out. He was likely just saying maybe someone should or it may come to that. Imams are serious about their call for beheadings. It’s from his scriptures. The UK is governed by dhimmis.
Look up Volksgerichtshof. The UK is full fascist.
Not quite The People’s Court presided over by Judge Joseph Wapner.