It comes after millionaire mum Bonnie Spofforth said she was 'mortified' to be accused of being the first to spread the false rumours.

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.

  • axh@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • realitista@lemm.eeEnglish
      15·
      4 months ago

      I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

      You should be punished for outcome, not intent. If you say something provably untrue that results in riots or murders, you should be held accountable for the outcomes of those statements. This is not that different from our current libel laws.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        4 months ago

        But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn’t the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.

        • realitista@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          4 months ago

          Yes my point was that “guilty mind” alone shouldn’t be enough to charge you with a crime.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            4 months ago

            Agreed, but you also said :

            I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

            And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.

            • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              4 months ago

              Furthermore if outcomes are what gets punished, then what happens if people get hurt because you said something provably true? Poeple aren’t rational at the worst of times.

              Untrue does not automatically mean its a lie. For an untruth to be a lie it also must intend to deceive.

              All lies are untrue but all untruths are not lies in the same way all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

              But even untruths that intend to deceive aren’t automatically lies, could be a joke though it’s probably debatable with regards to joking. But then that’s exactly why intent must be determined when considering the totality of any situation/incident

              Something can be done for amusement that isn’t a joke. And we all should be aware of the nature of Trolls at this point online

              • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                This feels like it was not an intended reply to my post as it seems to be dealing with entirely different subject matter , are you sure you are replying to the correct person?

                If your point is that intentionality of harm is required for law to be enacted then that isn’t particularly true either. Things like manslaughter charges exist because intention isn’t always nessisary when determining criminal fault for harm. Negligence, lack of adherence to pre existing law or willful ignorance are still criminal factors… And they have their own individual criminal burdens of proof that must be met to stick a conviction in court.

                It is simply a nature of law that intent is always considered and proof of it is nessisary to bring forth particular types of charges that are weighted more heavily based on proof of premeditated knowledge or intent. Lack of intent does not always mean no damages are criminaly found to be your fault that must be answered for. Law makes allowances in many cases for the potential of the purest of pure accidents.

                However since the UK has hate speech law, libel law and laws against provoking violence or harassment and damages are now measurable the person in the original article can be proven to have violated a law and damages happened as a result meaning that she cannot claim pure accident. Knowingly or not she broke a pre-existing law and people and property was damaged as a result.

                Just like a charge of vehicular manslaughter only really sticks if you were speeding or broke a traffic law. If you are truely blameless and followed all law it is ruled " actions leading to accidental death" which is not a punishable crime. Speeding in a school zone is usually a pretty mild punishment if one is caught doing it and no one gets hurt usually it is a pretty mild fine… But if someone dies as a result of your speeding you go to jail. Same premise here just different laws.

                • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  4 months ago

                  I’m not sure how to respond to this.

                  Reply was where it was intended.

                  Im clearly (to me anyway) responding to the conversation about outcomes and intents you quoted, but was reply to the conversation between you and the other person. Was trying to offer more support to your position since neither of you mentioned the facet i brought up. I may have rambled a bit but re reading it im not sure why you responded the way you did.

                  Im not that invested in this though so im just going leave it as i was agreeing with you, intent is a useful tool to use in any incident of judgment. Not one that needs to be used in the judgement, but needs to be considered before judgment