A Tory councillor whose wife was sentenced to 31 months in jail for inciting racial hatred after posting offensive remarks on social media during the recent riots says he believes the sentence was “political” and that he now feels “under attack”.
Speaking to the Mail, West Northamptonshire Conservative Party councillor Raymond Connolly confirmed that his family will appeal Lucy Connolly’s conviction.
We think that’s the right course of action. Following Lucy’s arrest, we reached out to the family and offered to provide her with a barrister, whom we’d pay for, if she wanted to plead not-guilty. Unwisely – although understandably given the stress of the situation – she decided to plead guilty. Needless to say, we stand ready to provide any assistance that may be helpful during the appeal process.
Following her trial, Lucy was convicted of incitement against asylum seekers, having posted an offensive message on X in the immediate aftermath of three schoolgirls getting stabbed to death in Southport in July. Her post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.”
There’s no doubt that many people will find that comment ‘offensive’. But does that mean it should be illegal?
As Toby Young points out for the Spectator this week, if Britons enjoyed the same constitutional protections as Americans, it would have been more difficult to prosecute Lucy for “intending to stir up racial hatred”, not least because she caveated her social media post with the phrase “for all I care”.
As interpreted by a famous Supreme Court decision in 1919 – Schenck v United States – the First Amendment protects speech, including speech advocating insurrection, unless it’s likely to lead to “a clear and present danger”.
Similarly, the Brandenburg test – established in Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) – is a key legal standard that continues to protect speech advocating for illegal action, as long as it doesn’t incite “imminent lawless action”.
Could a British First Amendment be worded in such a way that it gives judges no wiggle room when it comes to prioritising free speech? Toby isn’t convinced.
But if that isn’t the solution to the erosion of freedom of speech in Britain, what is? Repeal of those laws that limit our freedom of expression and a return to the ancient English Common Law ‘breach of the peace’ principle – which, as Toby notes, was the principle that inspired our American cousins to create the First Amendment as part of their Bill of Rights.
In other words, speech should be permitted unless it is going to lead to a breach of the peace.
