Andrew Doyle: Lucy Connolly's tweet was detestable - but we should all be worried about her prison sentence
Lucy Connolly's jail sentence calls into question the definition of incitement to violence
GB News/Northants Police
Andrew Doyle has branded the jail sentence handed to the wife of a Conservative councillor a clear example of "emotions overriding reason", calling into question the definition of incitement to violence.
The GB News presenter's comments come days after Lucy Connolly was jailed for 31 months at Birmingham Crown Court today after sending a social media message which stirred up racial hatred against asylum seekers.
The wife of West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly made the posts on X the same day three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport.
Misinformation about the suspected stabber's identity on social media fuelled incidents of racialised violence towards immigrant communities across Britain.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for 31 months at Birmingham Crown Court for stirring up racial hatred on X
Northants Police
She pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court last month to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing “threatening or abusive” written material on X, formerly Twitter.
The 41-year-old posted a message which read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the b*****s for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.”
During a panel debate on the relationship between tech and moral panic at the Battle of Ideas on Saturday, Mr Doyle suggested the punishment did not fit the crime.
"Not only do not I approve of Connolly's comments - I wholeheartedly detest them. But we need more sensitive discussion and debate. We are letting our emotions override reason," he said.
As the political commentator points out, It is one thing to publish something abhorrent, it is quite another to assert a "causal link" between social media posts and incitement to violence.
Mr Doyle claims that in a US context, Connolly's tweet does not meet the threshold for incitement to violence.
He cites the Brandenburg test - a Supreme Court standard for evaluating government attempts to punish inflammatory speech that could incite lawless action.
The test was established in 1969 and is still used today. The test balances the desire for government control of speech for security with the desire to allow as much speech as possible.
The test states that the government can't prohibit advocacy of force or law violation unless it's directed at inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.
Mr Doyle claims Connolly's tweet does not meet the threshold for incitement to violence
Southport X/social media
Mr Doyle casts doubt over the claim that Connolly's tweet meets the threshold for 'imminent lawless action'.
He acknowledges that the UK has its own incitement laws but claims cases like Connolly's suggest they are being "misapplied".
In the UK, the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to incite the unlawful act. The accused's words, behaviour, and contextual circumstances are all considered when determining intent.
"Should Connolly really go down for two-and-a-half years for her tweet?" Doyle asked the audience.
"We need a debate on how incitement to violence should be defined and not use it as a means for censorship," adding that we need to debunk the "myth" that words and violence are the same thing.
His comments come after a judge called for harsher sentences for the Southport rioters, some of whom have never had a criminal record.
Julie Sweeney, a 53-year-old carer from Cheshire is serving almost two years behind bars after suggesting in a Facebook post to "blow the mosque up with the adults in it".