The Law on Inciting Hatred: Human Rights, Torts, and Racism

📜 Disclaimer: This monologue is a work of creative expression inspired by real events. It does not represent the views of any individual, organization, or legal body. While it draws on publicly available information, it is intended to provoke thought and dialogue, not to assert factual claims or legal conclusions. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or deceased, is purely coincidental unless explicitly stated. Readers are encouraged to consult official legal sources for accurate information regarding the cases referenced.

🔊 Listen to Post

Inciting Hatred Under UK Law

Inciting hatred, especially racial hatred, is considered one of the most severe offenses under the UK’s hate crime legislation. These laws are designed to protect individuals from harm and ensure that everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or background, can live free from discrimination and violence. In this context, racism plays a central role, with the law providing specific protection against speech and actions that incite racial hatred.

Incitement to racial hatred is covered under the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises actions that are likely to stir up hatred, contempt, or ridicule based on race, religion, or ethnicity. The law has been amended several times to strengthen its reach, ensuring it can be applied effectively in cases involving more modern forms of communication, such as social media.

One of the most significant points of the law is that simply expressing racist views isn’t enough for a criminal charge; there needs to be an intention to stir up hatred or an act that is likely to lead to harm. As seen in the case of Lucy Connelly, the issue of racial hatred often arises in situations where harmful speech is broadcast or disseminated in ways that influence others and foster an environment of hostility.

Human Rights and Hate Speech

The UK’s approach to hate speech is also guided by human rights law. Under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), there is a delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect individuals from harm. Article 10 of the ECHR protects freedom of speech, but it is not absolute. Speech that incites violence or hatred is subject to restrictions to prevent harm to others, especially vulnerable groups.

This legal framework acknowledges that speech that encourages hatred or violence goes beyond merely expressing opinions; it actively harms communities by creating fear, division, and, in extreme cases, violence. The UK courts take this matter seriously, and human rights considerations are central to determining whether speech crosses the line into incitement.

Torts and the Impact of Incitement

In cases where inciting hatred leads to actual harm, whether physical or emotional, there may be grounds for a tort claim. Torts are civil wrongs that cause someone to suffer harm, and in the context of hate speech, individuals who experience harm due to racial hatred may have the option to pursue legal action for damages.

Racial abuse or incitement can have far-reaching effects on an individual’s mental and emotional health, and legal claims in this area often focus on the consequences of such actions, such as anxiety, depression, and loss of dignity. Torts in the realm of incitement also help reinforce the broader principle that speech is not free from consequences, especially when it harms others.

Sentencing and Aggravating Factors

When someone is convicted of inciting racial hatred, the severity of the penalty depends on various factors, including the method of communication, the context in which it was said, and the target of the speech. The law considers not only the content of the speech but also the manner in which it was conveyed, whether it was public or private, and whether it has led to real-world harm or the incitement of violence.

Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, inciting racial hatred is punishable by a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. The courts will consider the extent of the harm caused by the speech, including whether it has led to violence, protests, or an increase in racial tensions. The sentence also reflects the societal need to deter such harmful actions and to ensure that individuals understand the consequences of their words.

Lucy Connolly what did she say that landed her in prison

Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for inciting racial hatred after posting a tweet on 29 July 2024, in the immediate aftermath of the Southport murders. Her message on X (formerly Twitter) read: “Mass deportation now, set f**e to all the f****** hotels full of the b******s for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.” The tweet was viewed over 310,000 times in just a few hours before she deleted it. She was arrested on 6 August 2024, and later pleaded guilty to publishing and distributing threatening or abusive written material. The court sentenced her to 31 months in prison.

Connolly has since stated that she posted the tweet in a moment of anger and regretted it almost immediately. She also claimed that her words were “massively twisted” by authorities and that she was treated unfairly due to her political associations, her husband is a former Conservative councillor. She served 40% of her sentence before being released on licence in August 2025.

⚖️ Legal Arguments

• Charge and Conviction: Connolly pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, after posting a tweet that called for asylum hotels to be burned down.
• Prosecutors’ Position: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) argued her words were “threatening or abusive” and likely to stir up hatred. They cited her police interview, where she allegedly said she didn’t like immigrants and claimed children weren’t safe from them.
• Connolly’s Defence:
  • She claimed her tweet was posted in a moment of emotional distress following the Southport murders, which had sparked false rumours about the killer being an asylum seeker.
  • She said her words were “massively twisted” and insisted she did not advocate violence.
  • She pleaded guilty to avoid a lengthy remand and hoped to be released in time for Christmas with her daughter.
• Appeal Attempt: Her legal team challenged the sentence, arguing the judge misclassified the offence’s severity. The appeal was dismissed in May 2025.

🗣️ Public Reaction

• Political Commentary:
  • Prime Minister Keir Starmer defended the sentence, stating that incitement to violence must be taken seriously.
  • Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the sentence “harsher than those for actual rioting,” and suggested the Public Order Act needs reform.
  • Nigel Farage described Connolly as a “symbol of Keir Starmer’s authoritarian, broken, two-tier Britain”.
• Free Speech Debate:
  • Her case has become a flashpoint in the UK’s ongoing debate over free speech vs hate speech.
  • International figures, including U.S. Senator JD Vance, have cited her imprisonment as evidence of declining free speech in Britain.
  • Connolly has reportedly been invited to meet with representatives of Donald Trump’s administration to discuss free speech concerns.
• Public Division:
  • Critics see her as a reckless offender whose words risked inciting violence, especially since rioters did attempt to burn down an asylum hotel shortly after her tweet.
  • Supporters argue she’s a mother who made a mistake and was punished disproportionately, especially compared to others who committed physical acts of violence.

🏛️ Potential Legislative Impacts

1. Review of the Public Order Act 1986

• Connolly was convicted under Section 19 of this Act, which criminalizes publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred.
• Critics argue the law is too broad and outdated for the digital age, where impulsive posts can go viral in minutes.
• There’s growing pressure to clarify what constitutes “intent” vs. “reckless” speech online, especially when the speaker deletes the post quickly.

2. Calls for a “Lucy’s Law”

• Advocacy groups like the Free Speech Union are pushing for reforms that would:
  • Require jury trials for speech-related offences.
  • Limit custodial sentences for non-violent online speech.
  • Introduce clearer thresholds for incitement, distinguishing between offensive opinion and genuine threats.

3. Sentencing Reform

• Connolly’s 31-month sentence was upheld on appeal, but many legal experts and politicians, including Kemi Badenoch, argue it was disproportionate.
• This has reignited debates about:
  • Whether custodial sentences should be reserved for physical violence.
  • How to balance deterrence with rehabilitation, especially for women and first-time offenders.

4. Social Media Regulation

• The case highlights the explosive reach of platforms like X (formerly Twitter), and how misinformation can fuel unrest.
• Legislators may push for:
  • Faster takedown protocols for incitement.
  • Greater accountability for platforms in moderating viral hate speech.
  • Transparency in how police monitor and respond to online posts.

🔥 Political Ramifications

• Connolly’s case has become a rallying point for critics of Keir Starmer’s government, who claim it reflects a “two-tier justice system”.
• International figures, including U.S. Senator JD Vance, have cited her imprisonment as evidence of declining free speech in Britain.
• If pressure continues, we may see cross-party proposals to amend hate speech laws, especially those affecting digital expression.

🧭 Emerging Legislative Themes

1. Two-Tier Justice Debate

• Connolly received 31 months for a tweet, while Ricky Jones was acquitted after calling for protesters’ t*****s to be c*t at a rally.
• Palestine Action supporters were arrested for simply holding signs or wearing shirts with the words “Palestine” and “Action”.
• These disparities have led to calls for clearer, more consistent legal standards, especially around intent, context, and proportionality.

2. Reform of Hate Speech and Terrorism Laws

• The Public Order Act and Terrorism Act 2000 are under scrutiny:
  • Critics say they’re too vague and allow political bias in enforcement.
  • The proscription of Palestine Action, a non-violent direct action group, has triggered judicial review on grounds of disproportionate interference with free speech.
• Legal scholars and advocacy groups argue for:
  • Narrower definitions of “support” for proscribed groups.
  • Stronger protections for peaceful protest and political dissent.

3. Sentencing Guidelines and Bail Reform

• Connolly was denied bail and served time in near-solitary confinement.
• Jones, despite using violent imagery in a public rally, was released and cleared.
• These inconsistencies may prompt:
  • A review of remand practices for speech-related offences.
  • New sentencing guidelines that distinguish between online speech and physical incitement.

🛠️ Advocacy Strategy Implications

🔍 Evidence-Based Framing

• Connolly’s case shows the importance of resisting pressure to plead guilty when the legal threshold for incitement is unclear.
• Future defendants may be advised to seek jury trials, where context and intent can be better evaluated.

🧾 Legislative Campaigns

• Groups like the Free Speech Union and Amnesty International are pushing for:
  • A “Lucy’s Law” to protect digital expression.
  • Repeal or reform of Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which criminalizes symbolic support for proscribed groups.

📣 Public Messaging

• The contrast between Connolly and Jones is being used to highlight perceived political bias — especially in how left-wing vs. right-wing speech is treated.
• Reform UK and other parties are leveraging this to call for judicial neutrality and legislative clarity.

Inciting racial hatred is one of the most serious offences under hate crime legislation, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years. Sentencing depends not only on what was said, but also on how and where it was said, and who was targeted.

Conclusion

Inciting racial hatred is one of the most serious offenses under the UK’s hate crime legislation, carrying severe penalties for those found guilty. The law works to balance freedom of speech with the protection of vulnerable communities, acknowledging the devastating impact that hate speech can have on individuals and society as a whole. As seen in high-profile cases like that of Lucy Connelly, the law continues to evolve to ensure that hate speech does not go unchecked, with a firm commitment to human rights, torts, and the protection of individuals from harm.

Now that Lucy Connelly has been released from prison, she should NOT be able to hold the police or the CPS accountable for her actions. She clearly broke the law. As someone on license, she is bound by the rules of justice and should not stir up trouble, thinking she can get away with her actions. Anything she does could potentially lead to her being sent back to jail. She served a lesser sentence due to her status as a mother and her marriage to an MP; she should have had seven years. Her behavior is a prime example of the ENTITLEMENT that some individuals exhibit, making them believe they are above the consequences of their actions and the law. This kind of conduct only further contributes to the division and hostility in society, which is why people in the UK, even those born here, are often marginalized and shunned because of their name, colour, race, religion, or gender, factors that should not define a person’s worth. As someone who has personally faced racism and bullying from the age of 5 (yes, you read that correctly) and continued to encounter it in adulthood, I would caution anyone to be mindful of the potential consequences of words. People should be made aware that, by spreading hate, others may choose to sue for emotional distress and damages for hate crimes and racial discrimination, turning the tables on the likes of Lucy Conelly’s actions.

According to Connelly, she was a political prisoner (cry me a river – she obviously does not know the law): A political prisoner is an individual who has been arrested, detained, or imprisoned for their political beliefs, activities, or opinions, rather than for committing a criminal offense. These individuals are often targeted by governments or political authorities because they are seen as a threat to the ruling power. Political prisoners may be detained for activities such as:

• Protesting or speaking out against government policies.
• Advocating for democratic reforms or human rights.
• Opposing oppressive regimes or political systems.
• Participating in civil disobedience movements.

In many cases, the charges against political prisoners are politically motivated or fabricated to suppress dissent. They are often denied fair trials, and their imprisonment is viewed as a violation of their fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression. The term is commonly used in the context of authoritarian regimes where political opposition is not tolerated. Political prisoners have historically included activists, journalists, dissidents, and opposition leaders. International organizations, such as Amnesty International, often advocate for the release of political prisoners and push for governments to respect the rights of those incarcerated for their beliefs.

Further Reading & Resources

• When a Tweet Becomes a Crime: What the Lucy Connolly Case Says
• Myleene Klass shares racist remark after MBE honour
• Lucy Connolly claims she was Starmer’s ‘political prisoner’ after release from jail for race hate post | The Independent
• Lucy Connolly: Councillor’s wife jailed for inciting racial hatred on X after Southport murders released | UK News | Sky News
• Teacher sacked after criticising ‘two-tier justice’ in Lucy Connolly case
• Why has Lucy Connolly been released from prison now? A look back at timeline of hate-tweet sentence | ITV News Anglia
• UPDATED WITH SENTENCE: Childminder admits inciting racial hatred over social media post | The Crown Prosecution Service
• What is hate crime? | Police.uk
• Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
• https://disabledentrepreneur.uk/understanding-emotional-distress-tort/
• https://disabledentrepreneur.uk/racial-discrimination-on-the-rise-in-the-uk-why-foreign-names-should-not-make-you-a-target/