🚨 STATEMENT Sir Keir Starmer strong-arming the authorities to prosecute people for imprudent social media posts will have a chilling effect on free speech. At the Free Speech Union (FSU), we're fighting back. When Cheshire police arrested a 55 year-old women last week for wrongly identifying the Southport attacker as a Muslim asylum seeker, we stepped in to provide assistance. We would be amazed if she is charged — but if she is, we will pay for her defence. While she may be guilty of spreading misinformation, that isn't (yet) a crime, and it would be hard to charge her with the section 179 false communications offence created by the Online Safety Act, because one of its tests is that "the message conveys information the person knows to be false" — clearly, this isn't the case here. Many other people have been getting in touch to seek advice following recent pronouncements that even the act of sharing footage of rioting on social media could be enough to land you with a criminal record. That's why we've put in place an arrangement with a top firm of criminal lawyers, so if one of our members is contacted by the police in connection with something they've said — in real-life or online — about the murder of the three schoolgirls in Southport and the subsequent unrest, we will pay for a telephone consultation about your case and may, at our discretion, pay for a solicitor to attend a police interview, as well as further legal work on your case. If you're an FSU supporter, now might be a good time to become a member. Click the link below to join us and help support the work we do, standing up for the speech rights of our 15,500+ members in an increasingly censorious culture. The enemies of free speech fight in packs. It's defenders need to band together too. Join the FSU. Together we can cancel cancel culture.

ADMIN POST - TOMMY'S PREPARED STATEMENT - SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE!!!! This is the speech Tommy prepared for court today, unfortunately he wasn't able to give the speech but it is his wish that you all get to read it for yourselves. Your honour, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. My duty as a journalist is to uncover the truth and I have worked for years to shine light on challenges in society that no one else is willing to speak about. Have you watched the documentary Your Honour? If you have watched the film ‘Silenced’ Your Honour you will have seen that I didn’t make accusations and I didn’t make assumptions in the film. I simply repeated what I was told by the Head Teacher of the school and others and what was written in black and white in school documents. I let the witnesses give their testimonies and made it clear that Jamal, in his right to reply, denies all of their accusations against him. I explain Justice Nicklin’s verdict and I explain that I lost the case. There was nothing else I could have included because Jamal didn’t bring any evidence to court and he didn’t bring anyone to court to speak for him apart from his father, Jihad. No teachers. No social workers. No friends. It is for this,... REPORTING... for this that I am facing these charges, for this I am facing the prospect of time in a maximum security prison with the risks to my life that presents. Justice Nicklin’s verdict in this case is extraordinary and while the case caused my divorce and bankruptcy, far more important is the impact his verdict has had on those courageous children who came to court to testify in my defence. Justice Nicklin effectively discarded their testimonies. He said he didn’t know why they were lying but called them liars nevertheless. Charlie, a grade A student, didn’t even like me or support me but was courageous enough to come to court to testify. She had a breakdown, she had to be sectioned. Justice Nicklin caused that. Bailey Maclaren had tried to commit suicide. Thankfully he has started to rebuild his life. He has to overcome the lie that he is racist. Many others have been affected. The collateral damage of this scandalous verdict was too great for the public not to know the truth. Some people still believe the legacy media is there to report what is happening, the truth, rather than push strongly biased accounts driven by ideology or political agendas. Well, in this case, the press only attended court on the day Jamal and his father gave their accounts. They then left court and didn’t bother to return to hear the testimony of the children who were witnesses for the defence. The whole balanced picture could not be reported by the legacy media because they weren’t there; they weren’t interested in what the children testifying for the defence had to say. And then Justice Nicklin tried to prevent the whole picture being given to the public by issuing his injunction, banning the film. Justice Nicklin has banned me from presenting the same evidence that was presented in court. If it is such a clear-cut case, why is it necessary to hide the facts from the public. If they watched the testimonies of the witnesses, they would surely come to the same conclusion as Justice Nicklin. What’s the agenda here? Well the injunction was apparently to protect Jamal’s reputation. Yet it’s not the reputation of Jamal that has been damaged by this legal circus. I don’t wish any ill for Jamal. I personally think he was a victim of his own predatory lawyers and those who blasted this story around the world for their own purposes. It’s very telling that Jamal hasn’t asked for me to be prosecuted in this case. Neither have his lawyers. The case has been brought by the Attorney General, by the Government. In my view there are similarities with the Post OMice case. Powerful interests hiding the truth for their own purposes regardless of the terrible consequences for those innocent children I have mentioned, and others. I could have shown the film ‘Silenced’ at any point in the preceding three years. I didn’t. However, I did make the decision to play this film in Trafalgar Square on the 27th July this year. and I am grateful to @elonmusk and X for allowing the film to remain available; for standing for freedom of speech and a free press. So if you’re asking me whether I plead guilty or not guilty, yes, I’m guilty of showing the film in Trafalgar Square on 27th July. And I am guilty of JOURNALISM. And, although not for you Your Honour, nor for your court nor for the entire justice system, I do have contempt for Justice Nicklin’s ruling and the actions that attempt to hide the truth from the public. Justice Nicklin fell out with his own father before the case, arguing about me. He should have recused himself before the case even began. The world is watching. I stand for the truth, for freedom of speech and freedom of the press and if that puts me on the wrong side of Justice Nicklin’s injunction, then so be it. If I have to sit in jail for speaking the truth; Well I am just one of many people now that this government is imprisoning for things they say; political prisoners. This government is releasing violent offenders early to make space for people who tweet things they disagree with. Peter Lynch is the first to have paid the ultimate price. A sixty-one year-old father, and grandfather, non-violent but imprisoned for his views and his speech. If I have to sit in jail for refusing to be silenced for reporting information that was brought to me for journalism... Then I am prepared for that. Thank you Your Honour. #FreeTommy #LAWFARE #TwoTierKeir

If you think Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner please retweet ❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧❤️🇬🇧

I feel physically sick … horrible videos in thread.. You sicken me @metpoliceuk

It’s a good job this Labour MP didn’t want to stop illegal immigration otherwise Starmer would demand he was locked up for this