[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Admittedly “fellow” was a tad generous. Some of you are NOT my fellows.

Good to know, have a great evening now

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Beso

Imagine if I cared what you think.

Oh you do that’s why you keep replying

[Maru]

The way I read it, she said she didn't care that the hotel burned with all the migrants and would've been just fine if the politicians went up with them. That seemed to infer that she was OK if the migrants were inside the building also as there is a "with them". I didn't think that interpretation was that controversial... (Thank you for people who kept re-posting it so I didn't have to go back through 13 16 pages...)

Her emotional state may be more open to interpretation, but I don't find exercises in mind reading in either direction to be particularly useful, especially when it comes to the law.

If she was being held accountable for the potential results or effects of what is said or implied, it doesn't really matter what her subconscious intent was.. because the words alone could lead to deleterious effects, again, according to the law. A law that I think is far too broad and easy to abuse for political gains, but that's besides the point...

Whether she was fragile, had PTSD, was hopped up on hormones, whatever.. consider if a person threatens someone with the intent for violence (not in this case), it still constitutes a threat regardless of how heated that person might've been for a short period.

The law in that instance is only looking at the expressed intent behind the initial threat. Potential "victims" or innocent bystanders have no way of interpreting how meaningful or meaningless their threat or rhetoric is... and they're not expected to know that. Serious threats have very negative consequences on the psyche and livelihood of another person even if they're not carried out... it would be enough for the law in that case, so I imagine on laws that regulate or penalize violent or volatile speech, it would be even easier to label it as such...

Using the same example, in the case of a received threat, all a victim might see is "Hey this person wants to harm me..."... in the case of rhetoric, my understanding is the intent to use rhetoric that might fuel heightened situations with the possibility (however minor) to incite further violence as supposedly some actors will perceive that as support, would be enough for a violation... that bit is arguable to me because I do think that people say stupid **** in the "heat of the moment" (pun not intended)... doesn't make it morally right, no, but it's getting into mind reading and I'm not one who is comfortable with the govt's free agency in interpreting or misinterpreting that... (spoiler: always in the govt's favor)... in this case, a stiff ruling is the govt saying "Here's my big strong arm and this is not acceptable".

I wouldn't suggest she is directly threatening to burn a building or is even capable of such, but she used volatile rhetoric and that was enough to meet the standard in the law. Don't blame the people "misinterpreting it". How do we know either way what her actual intent was? We're not mind readers and the law isn't really designed for that either, that's why speech-based rulings are so dubious ... blame the law that decided this was illegal conduct, not the people who heard it and thought they saw a flaming support (pun intended) in favor of increasing violence... it was open enough to interpretation that the law was able to be used to penalize her...

If you as a citizen can't trust other people to interpret words "correctly" then you almost certainly don't want to leave the govt with that power...

[bots]

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bots

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by bots

@Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Deleting or penalizing a single post wouldn't have an effect as it doesn't create the opportunity for violence. The bigger impacts would be from arresting people known for destroying public property and attacking citizens and making that public. In many places, criminals get enhancements to charges when you touch a civil servant or property, so it would be harder to quickly release them at that level. That's more than a good enough deterrent without the effect of being controversial in a way that possibly creates more dissidents.

People who riot already have the mentality to create public disorder... they're looking for protests with lax security and victims that are sitting ducks or who are surrounded by people who won't intervene and maybe even will participate. That's why when we have even small protests here, we almost immediately schedule people right away who are trained in riots and have access to riot gear because any potential is high enough.

The rioters are not waiting and sitting around checking X to see if anyone even agrees with them... that would imply that if one had enough people disagreeing with them, that speech alone could disable what they're already capable of. Instead, they're just looking for the best opportunity and none of that has to do with people posting negative comments online...

My opinion is they likely punished her to compensate for the fact they let it get out of control in the first place. It has the effect of chilling speech, but it doesn't just chill speech around the support of the riots, it also shuts down the criticism of law enforcement because it appeases enough of the right people that they'll become vocal supporters for govt.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

How dumb does one have to be get locked up for 9 years for attempted arson. The building will be fixed and the most of it forgotten before they're even sentenced.