That's a different case, and it's still not a thought-crime. It's debatable whether it's a crime at all, and whether he should have been arrested. I think normally he wouldn't have been; he was rather foolish to try something like that just after people had been killed in rioting. (Which isn't to say I condone the arrest. There have been some prosecutions I consider wrong, notably the
Robin Hood Airport bomb "threat".
The problem here is that there is a fine line between thought crime, criminal conspiracy and actual criminal offense to incitement to commit crime, much of it is subjective and due to the nature of the language used i.e. semantics such as the infamous 'let him have it', which led to an innocent man being hung.
"Thought crime" by definition is pretty clear cut. Publishing online is an action, not a thought. Shouting "Let him have it" is an action, not a thought.
Actions have consequences. People can be responsible for those consequences even if they didn't intend them.
One of the first tests should be if the actual criminal incitement charge actually led to any actual physical crimes being committed, which in all these cases did not.
I disagree. If someone drink-drives, they should be prosecuted even if they don't have an accident. Attempted murder should be prosecuted even if the attempt failed.
Previous Topic
Index
