- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@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 must log in or register to comment.
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
Ironically, the reason for all this in the first place.
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.
Yep. In Germany for example we don’t name perpetrators at all, neither alleged nor convicted. Newspapers are not allowed to refer to them with anything but the first name plus first letter of the last name, or initials. The only exception is when someone dangerous is on the run and they need help from the public to ID him, in that case the name is released after an ethical review board from the police force decides so (it’s mostly done on the spot without delay, but there is a procedure at the very least).
A general exception is made for persons of interest, be it celebrities, politicians or something. For general members of the public, nothing truly identifiable is released. Minors (generally below the age of 18, or people tried as minors, i.e. committed a crime while below 18 but only tried later) will not be named whatsoever; only their age and gender are released.
Race is never mentioned, unless it is a race-related hate crime.
Race is never mentioned, unless it is a race-related hate crime.
We need something like this in my country. There’s a newspaper here (il giornale) that always has headlines like
- African robs store
- African rapes girl
- Illegal alien shoplifts
- Mad African shouts in a mall
- Foreigner madness: demands food then gets mad when denied
And so on. The last (foreigner madness) is almost a catchphrase for them, if you search for “la follia dello straniero” it comes out only results from that outlet
A crime is a crime and the criminal nationality is irrelevant, unless you need to push some agenda
Social media has been weaponized and will only get worse as media conglomerates congregate further.
You’re right but otherwise there are cases like child rapists that get a slap on the wrist and then go to represent a country at the Olympics
They literally did the same thing she got arrested for.
They know it’s her, they’re just shielding themselves from libel claims. The same way they’ll say “allegedly” until a conviction.
If they were trying to shield themselves they could have not dropped a name. This is different than saying allegedly about someone who was arrested and the name released.
deleted by creator
True, but she also posted her lies publicly using her real name, so it isn’t as though her name isn’t already out there.
That’s not true at all.
She literally made shit up out of nowhere with no evidence.
The website is posting actual credible information based on available evidence I.e. journalism.
One thing that isn’t really touched on because it never got published is that Spofforth has been an active organizer for the far right since 2020. Since then she has been active in anti Drag Queen Story Hour harrasment and targeting hotels. Another example is Yorkshire Rose (Amanda Smith) who has been doing the exact same but to a larger extent.
My main concern is that these fascist agitators have been placed into prisons with people of colour and leftwing activists for an extended period of time.
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.
They never use that argument for men.
“He’s a father of 3”
They’re always coming up with an excuse.
Being a mother of three plays against her in my mind.
She didn’t do this for her children but her own selfish reasons. Her children will suffer from her actions and therefore she is an irresponsible parent that does not consider the well being of her children.
She’s trying to ensure that her kids grow up in a more hateful and racist country, this is the legacy she’s trying to leave her children.
For me, the being a mother of three and that being mentioned just has descriptive value. It doesn’t affect my judgement of her. It just helps me place who did this in the context of society and this anecdote, for whatever that matters - haters/bigots come in all shapes and sizes of course
It’s also just commonly done in UK newspapers. Age and familial status is always given. Terry Pratchett made a joke about it in one of his books, though I can’t remember the quote.
Edit: found one (not exactly the gag I wanted but CBA to look further)
‘Exc–’ he began. But the citizen’s eyes had already detected the notebook. ‘I saw it all,’ he said. ‘Did you?’ ‘It was a ter-ri-ble scene,’ said the man, at dictation speed. ‘But the watch-man made a deathdefying plunge to res-cue the old lady and he de-serves a med-al.’ ‘Really?’ said William, scribbling fast. ‘And you are–’ ‘Sa-muel Arblaster (43), stonemason, of The Scours,’ said the man. ‘I saw it too,’ said a woman next to him, urgently. ‘Mrs Florrie Perry, blonde mother of three, from Dolly Sisters. It was a scene of car-nage.’
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.
Calling a dude a couch fucker is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.
Yeah the reality is if the courts start letting the government arrest people for speech, it’s those going on about “woke mind viruses” who are gonna be the first to weaponize that. Without free speech, the left ceases to exist.
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.
Good, fuck Nazis.
Wow. That would be a first that spreading misinformation actually has legal consequences.
Now do newspapers next!
Fox News FAFOed 787 million legal consequences.
Eh, the fact they’re still at it means it was just the cost of doing business.
And that other conspiracist from infowars.
Quite the punishment. Imagine the inconvenience of having to hide hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also, how much is she to blame, as opposed to RT and Andrew Tate? This woman is a rich racist nobody. She wasn’t the main person to spread the info. She isn’t a media outlet, and she isn’t required to fact check anything she heard (as she claims she heard it from someone else). What’s next? Someone getting arrested for calling Vance a couch fucker? (USA still has some stuff going alright for itself)
She made up a racist lie about a child killer and expressed that violence should result. People rioted. It’s called incitement to violence and it’s illegal in the UK. No one rioted over the couch nonsense, and no one called for violence over the couch fucking. It’s a bit different. Call a riot, go to jail. Your racist lying calls to violence aren’t welcome in the UK, rich racist nobody.
She either made up a racist lie, or she just does a racist lie that she heard. Where’s she calling for violence or telling people to riot?
Read the tweet. The logic goes A. If A then B. You’re struggling with deducing B from that? You’re forgetting that the rioters targeted asylum lawyers and hotels where asylum seekers are held. Where did the idea of last week’s violence against asylum seekers come from? It came from her tweet.
I don’t care what she says about what someone said in Southport. She was the one who posted the made up name for the child killer. She was the one who posted the made up claim about the killer being an asylum seeker, and she was the one who posted the made up conclusion of violence.
Her tweet itself is the incitement to violence. She’s the one who made the announcement online. That there is the crime.
Don’t do it, boys and girls. Don’t encourage people to violence on the Internet. It’s illegal in the UK. Your racist lies and support for violence aren’t welcome in Great Britain and we’ll very happily see you behind bars along with the far right nut jobs who heed your dog whistle. If this scares any of you personally, good. Not sorry. Don’t post support for violence on social media.
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.
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.
“As a German, I find myself groaning when I see this discussion come up. Conspiracy theorists are not rational. If fascists could be swayed by facts and reason, they would not believe what even the most minor bit of fact checking would disprove. Allowing them to spew their nonsense freely or join a coalition won’t disabuse them of their notions; it will help them seek and build echo-chambers and become further radicalized.We see the echo chamber effect on every online platform. Whether or not the holocaust happened, for example, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Making up your own facts is called lying. And when your lies are so malicious and harmful that they actually pose a threat to other people or the nation itself, then yes, that should absolutely be punishable. It’s no different than slander or libel.
“What value is there to allowing holocaust denial? Serious question. And I don’t mean appealing to the slippery slope of how it leads to other worse prohibitions. There’s a lot of arguing for Free Speech for its own sake - that Free Speech is the highest virtue in and of itself that must never, ever be compromised, for any reason, and that this should be self-evident. But I ask, what’s the harm in not allowing holocaust denial, specifically? What is the benefit in allowing it? There is none. Nothing good will ever come out of someone spewing holocaust denial. Ever. You won’t get a thoughtful debate beneficial to both parties. They’re wrong, simple as that. The “best” outcome you’ll get out of it is that you can convince a denier or someone on the fence that they’re wrong. Great. The best outcome involves suppressing it. There are, however, a hell of a lot potentially bad consequences in that their stupidity can infect others and shift the Overton window their way.
“The reason that the majority of modern Germans look at the Nazi flag and feel nothing but revulsion whereas a sizable portion of US southerners actually fly the confederate flag and defend it (Heritage, not hate, or It was about states’ rights, not slavery, or Slaves weren’t treated so bad) is that Germans were forbidden from telling each other comforting lies about their past."
— quote I stole from unknown redditor
That’s a very well written quote that makes a good point.
Conspiracy theorists form echo-chambers to repeat their ridiculous claims amongst themselves and it poses a challenge to the rest of us to figure out how to prevent this without compromising our own values.
The sentiment I was trying to communicate is that involving the police as enforcers of truth on the internet is simply a foreign concept to me as an American. It feels heavy handed and I think carries an obvious risk.
It’s easy to cheer on when it’s happening to someone we dislike, like the racist lady in question, but I think it’s important to take a step back and make sure it truly aligns with our basic principles of freedom.
No, it’s never OK to incite violence. The crime here isn’t lying on the internet, it’s spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.
…and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn’t an incitement to violence, she isn’t even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying “if this is the truth”.
The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.
She was the first to post the incendiary racist lie, and she posted it claiming it should result in violence. I think Farage and Tate should also be charged for amplifying it (but Tate isn’t in the country).
You think that the people who rioted should go to prison but not the woman who started the ball rolling and first suggested the rioting online? Punish the footmen but not the ringleaders? Your morality is screwy.
Words can have power. Don’t use them to start violence in the streets of the UK. We’ll put you behind bars for that and not be sorry.
Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?
If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.
Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.
Far right nut jobs rioting for political purposes isn’t the same as the whole country going crazy. It’s not society in general that’s fucked up and needs a reality check, it’s the far right nut jobs. (Far, far more people turned up for the Hope not Hate counter protests, which were peaceful.)
Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?
I think this is an absurdly naïve reading of the tweet in which she quite clearly expresses that violence is the inevitable result of the wrong immigration status of the suspect. It’s very clearly a lie designed to stoke anger and foment violence. Which it did. Far right nut jobs go to prison for rioting. Far right nut jobs that incite the violence go to prison. Good.
Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.
She’s not a random civilian, she’s the one at the start of the chain of events.
“saying something inconvenient” and calling for violence on a false racist narrative are not morally equivalent. You’re not winning the moral argument by equating them.
Please try not to use words like “inconvenient” in a discussion about far right street violence. It’s a bit insensitive and comes across as trivialising the issue.
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.
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.
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
It has many appliances and no doubt many names. But it’s easy to work out on first principals. Without a system of enforced rules, ass holes take over and ruin it for everyone (including themselves). Places without law and order are a mess and normally end up with laws set by war/drug lord. Until they are murdered and the next one takes over.
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.
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.
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.
You don’t think we should blame the one person who made up the lie and sparked racist riots across the country?
I look at it the way I look at drunk driving. If you drink and drive, most of the time you’re going to be fine. You’re not going to get in an accident, and you’re not going to get caught. But what you’re doing is still dangerous and wrong.
If you do get caught because you were swerving all over the road and a cop saw you, you’re going to be in some shit, but it probably won’t ruin your life. If you cross the divider into oncoming traffic and obliterate a family in a minivan, on the other hand, once you’re out of the hospital you should be dragged to court and then to prison for what you actually did.
Deliberately spreading misinformation online is like driving drunk. You’re going to get away with it 99% of the time, and nothing major will actually come from the lies you spread specifically. However, if you’re so reckless with your lies that you cross that metaphorical divider and start a series of escalating race riots that do demonstrable damage, then you get to suffer the consequences for what you’ve done.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
But that is why, if they catch you, and you haven’t obliterated a family, you still catch heat.
This lying bitch isn’t likely to catch nearly enough to deter future drunk driving at the keyboard. When we catch you driving drunk you lose your fucking license.
Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.
bingo. change has to start somewhere.
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.
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?
real big “why can’t I yell fire in this building?” vibes.
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.
