Free Speech, Incitement and the Lucy Connolly Case
Former childminder and wife of a local Conservative councillor Lucy Connolly was released from her prison sentence last month, after serving ten months of a 31-month sentence for inciting racial hatred.
Her case reignited arguments about the boundaries of free speech, hate speech, and the role of social media platforms and the state.
All of this in the grim context of increasing immigration.
The Offending Post and Conviction
Posted on social media on 29 July 2024, after the three girls were stabbed to death at a dance class in Southport:
"Mass deportation now, burn all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care … If that makes me racist so be it."
The post was available online for approximately three and a half hours and was viewed more than 310,000 times, 940 re-posts, 58 quotes, and 113 bookmarks before it was taken down.
Connolly was arrested on 6 August 2024, denied bail, and admitted offence of publishing material likely to stir up racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986
She was sentenced to two years and seven months with 40% of that to be served in custody.
The judge classified the offence as "category 1A" given the high public profile of the messages.
Connolly was released on 21 August 2025.
The release timing was connected to the 40 % custody threshold, minus the time she had spent on remand while waiting for sentence.
She remains on licence under supervision until the full sentence period expires.
Tensions Between Free Speech and Incitement
Her defenders typically draw on two arguments:
- the criminalization bar for speech is too low.
- her case was politically selected — that she has been dealt with more harshly for her views than others.
Critics, nevertheless, say the law clearly sets out where the line is between expression and incitement. The Public Order Act 1986 provides that it is an offence under English law to publish threatening or abusive material if it is likely to stir up racial hatred or where that will be the consequence.
It's worth noting that Connolly was not found guilty of "hurtful words," but of calling for violent action (arson, mass deportation) against a protected group.
Should incitement on social media be legal...?
On current legal grounds Connolly is bang to rights, clearly calling for burning Immigrants' hotels down is illegal, and given that this is the political issue of the moment I think it's fair she went to jail within the current legal parameters...
Personally I don't want to see incitement on our social media platforms either, simply because it's just unpleasant and probably will embolden people to raise the stakes, and I do think words can encourage actions.
Although I'm extremely uncomfortable with the role of the state in all of this - that most violent of institutions, who have no need to incite violence because they are so capable of just being violent and actually rely on NOT telling us about it in order to carry on getting away with it.
The irony here is so sick beyond comprehension part of me just wants to say fuck it just let everyone have the freedom to say what the fuck they want!
It's certainly complex!
The issue you raise is very interesting. And in fact, it all has to do with the seriousness of the accusations or incitements made. Of course, personal opinion should not be censored, but incitement cannot be the way someone expresses their opinion contrary to another. We have all seen what some phrases written by more eminent personalities have led to...
I don't think it's such a simple issue. People should be able to express opinions, but encouraging violence is not on. What the punishment should be is not clear. I do think it needs to be called out.
We've seen people in the US saying their speech is being censored, but then if someone says something against them then they want that person sacked. That's hypocrisy.
I just think it's dumb to make blanket statements about any race/religion/sexuality/political view. We've seen some nasty things done by individuals, such as the Manchester incident, but you can't put that on everyone from the community that person comes from. I think certain elements are trying to stir up more division.
The biggest problem is that her response was appropriate and in line with what had happened.
She was being quite civil. Murder begets hangin.
And bad house guest must be thrown out.
In response, that "group" should have pushed the criminal out, ratted them out, turned em over to the po po, so that they won't be tarred with the same brush.
But, that group does not see itself as part of the community, it sees it as us vs the world. So, they wouldn't throw out even the bad apples. (yes, this can all be applied to the po po. The largest, best armed, gang)
It is a bad policy to force one side to be extra polite/self composed while the other side is forgiven all mistakes. This will end badly. With all the immigrants making a run for the border.
In other words, the "hate speech" law will have the exact opposite affect of what it is claimed to be for.
And, i do not believe we can make a law about speech, unless both sides are held to equal standards AND both sides self police. With two unequal groups, we must have unequal laws. And yes, i am seeing this applied to the two biggest groups, men & women in the future.
Her words seem close to incitement. She didn't cross the line in my opinion, but came very close. If she had stated something like, "let's go burn these mf'ers down", I'd consider that incitement. The way I read it, she would not be bothered if somebody were to do it. But she isn't actually telling anybody to do it or to help her do it.
Ultimately, it comes down to how incitement is defined and how the courts interpret that definition.
In the long term, suppressing opinions, I think, is making frustration and anger build up more than if people could vent. What's more alarming is that there is an illusion that people don't have strong opinions. Now you don't know who to look out for.
Personally, I prefer people to be openly ugly so I can give them a wide berth.
I know what you mean about just pushing it all back until one day it blows up even worse! Censoring is also like letting everyday people off challenging views they disagree with of course...
I believe you should have the right to say anything you want, regardless of how disturbing or offensive it is... You should also know how to take a right hook...
Popular speech doesn't need protection,...
Interesting case.
Not sure where I fully stand on this as much can be said on both sides. Giving reasoning for either side would pull me in directions I would rather not go. I will say the punishment seems a bit much regardless of how I weigh the points of each side.