They literally did the same thing she got arrested for.

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.

Ironically, the reason for all this in the first place.

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.

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

They never use that argument for men.

"He's a father of 3"

They're always coming up with an excuse.

They arrested the guy too. And I'm all for it.

Fox News FAFOed 787 million legal consequences.

Now do newspapers next!

The irony of naming someone as the "woman shares name of man she believes was the one arrested for crime before the police released the name" before the police release the name is incredibly ridiculous.

It's "Metro" it's a free newspaper that's available on every bus in the UK owned by the same people as the infamous paper: the Daily Mail. It has the same low-quality journalism but with the opposite spin (centre-left).

I wouldn't trust those two papers to wipe my arse clean because there'd be more shit smeared onto my cheeks!

She's a millionaire, so not a lot of support for her.

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.

“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

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.

If you lie and say I stabbed 3 children, you open yourself to libel.

But if you do it for a fake person and it starts riots, what should happen? There are no damages to an individual like libel, instead it's for society as a whole. So do nothing when the outcome is worse? Seems backward.

1. Being ordinary shouldn't protect you from legal consequences of starting nationwide riots.
2. Blaming Starmer for far right riots is super weird.
3. The rioters are the ones who want to turn it into a police state. This is just justice.
4. You have this strange notion that it can't be criminal to say a thing, but how many war criminals did the deeds themselves? How many evil leaders were more hands-on than their followers? The worst criminals use words and let their followers go to jail for carrying out their wishes.
5. Hooray! The more people that know YOU CAN GO TO JAIL in the UK for inciting a riot on Xitter, Faceschmuk or Telegrunt, the better. Actually hooray. Actual firestarters going to jail rather than just saying they were "asking important questions". Farage next please.

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.

Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.