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.

  • MelllvarEnglish
    59·
    1 month ago

    The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.

    • Deceptichum@quokk.auEnglish
      133·
      1 month ago

      How about we get both sides of the argument to meet in a big large room, we can present the facts of what happened, and allow trained professionals and/or a selection of her peers to judge what should be punished on a case by case basis?

      Nah sounds ridiculous, let’s just do nothing.

      • MelllvarEnglish
        5·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

        • davidagain@lemmy.worldEnglish
          73·
          1 month ago

          There’s unpopular speech and there’s speech that starts nationwide riots. I don’t get how you’re confusing them.

          • MelllvarEnglish
            42·
            1 month ago

            I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

            It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

            • davidagain@lemmy.worldEnglish
              61·
              1 month ago

              They’re not being punished for disagreeing with the government - that was when the conservative government made it illegal to protest climate change. No, they’re being punished for causing violence. It’s not that the opinion is wrong, it’s that the far right lies caused far right rioting. I don’t know why anyone thinks that should be consequence free. It’s crazy that you would think it should be allowed.

              • MelllvarEnglish
                31·
                1 month ago

                It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

                • davidagain@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  1 month ago

                  Well I think the state should have the power to jail people for starting nationwide riots. I don’t see why you don’t. It’s weird. You think the rioters should go to jail but the ones that kicked it off shouldn’t? Really odd.

                  • MelllvarEnglish
                    22·
                    1 month ago

                    It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”