A British court has handed an 18-month prison sentence to a 36-year-old man for two social media posts that were viewed a total of 33 times, a case now raising fresh alarms over the United Kingdom’s increasingly aggressive “hate speech” laws and the collapsing state of free expression.
Luke Yarwood was jailed this week for two anti-immigration posts on X, written after a Christmas market car attack in Magdeburg, Germany, in December 2024.
The supposed crime was what online speech UK authorities now classify as “racial hatred.”
During his court case, prosecutors also blasted Yarwood for the “extremely unpleasant posts” that he wasn’t being criminally prosecuted for.
His own brother-in-law, with whom he reportedly had an ongoing conflict, reported him to the police.
The conviction comes amid a wave of similar prosecutions, including the recent jailing of 42-year-old Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor, over a comment calling for people to “set fire” to migrant hotels following the Southport attack in 2024.
Prosecutors Admit the Posts Had Just 33 Views But Insist They Could Trigger Disorder
Prosecutor Siobhan Linsley told the court that Yarwood’s “extremely unpleasant posts” had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset.
Yarwood’s defense countered that the posts were viewed just 33 times and were, in reality, “the impotent rantings of a socially isolated man” with no “real-world” consequences.
Judge Jonathan Fuller rejected that argument, calling the posts “odious” and sentencing Yarwood to immediate prison time.
The judge insisted the comments were “specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence.”
What Yarwood Posted
Court records show Yarwood made two posts between December 21, 2024, and January 29, 2025, amid online speculation that the German attacker was an Islamic extremist.
Responding to a post about Germans “taking to the streets,” Yarwood wrote:
“Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.”
Another post, in reply to a GB News thread, read:
“I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.
“Violence and murder is the only way now.
“Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.”
Prosecutors said additional posts showed a “rabid dislike” for foreigners, but admitted they could not prosecute those because they did not explicitly incite violence.
Examples included one post where Yarwood complained about “Walking for ages and not hearing a word of English.”
In another post, he criticized “asylum seekers outside the hotel staring at young college girls.”
Prosecution: Even Microscopic Posts Can Be Criminal
Linsley argued that although the two charged posts had minimal views, Yarwood had other posts in the same period that reached over 800 views, and that he sometimes replied to accounts like GB News with a much larger reach.
One GB News post he responded to had one million views.
However, Yarwood’s replies to these posts did not reach large numbers, and he was not being charged over them.
She said Yarwood demonstrated “anger about the presence of Muslims and foreigners in Britain,” pointing to what she described as “extremely unpleasant posts between December and January.”
Her argument pointed to the broader political climate:
“There are ongoing protests daily around asylum hotels up and down the country that are having to be policed.”
Defense: A Sick, Isolated Man Being Made an Example Of
Defense lawyer Nick Tucker said Yarwood was in a bitter family feud, stressed, mentally fragile, and no longer held the “extremist views.”
He urged the judge to consider suspension of the sentence, citing health concerns and the impact of custody on Yarwood’s relationship with his son.
Tucker said Yarwood’s posts were “the impotent rantings of a socially isolated man with fragile mental health.”
He also argued Yarwood was not a genuine ideologue:
“The defendant is not at heart a racist; he simply found this to be a convenient channel for his discontent.”
Judge: Freedom of Speech Is “Qualified”
Judge Fuller made clear the ruling was intended as a warning:
“You are entitled to express your views, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right; it’s a qualified one.”
He continued:
“The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.
“The tweets speak for themselves; they are odious in the extreme.
“There could be few clearer examples of words specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence.”
He concluded that only “immediate imprisonment” was appropriate.
A Growing Pattern
Yarwood’s case is the latest in a rapidly expanding series of UK prosecutions under “hate speech” and “online harm” laws, many involving tiny audiences, private disagreements, or political criticism of migration policy.
In many cases, the “offensive” speech being prosecuted often conflicts with the agenda of the socialist UK government.
The new precedent suggests that social media posts, even those viewed only dozens of times, can now lead to lengthy prison sentences if authorities decide they convey “offensive” political sentiments.
Civil liberties advocates warn the trend is accelerating, and the boundaries of legal speech in Britain are shrinking faster than at any time in modern memory.
READ MORE – UK Government Launches New Effort to Crack Down on Public’s ‘Emotions’
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.