TRADECRAFT: The “Free Speech” Shield

The Concept

One of the most common smoke screens in information warfare is the “Freedom of Speech” Defense. Bad actors will incite violence, coordinate attacks, or release doxxing information, and when challenged, they retreat to the bunker of “It’s just my opinion!”

As an analyst, you must distinguish between Expression (Legal) and Incitement (Criminal).

THE RED LINE: The Jordan Parlour Case (2024)

Real-world consequence of digital incitement.

In August 2024, during riots in the UK, a 28-year-old man named Jordan Parlour made a Facebook post. He did not attend the riot. He did not throw a rock. He sat at home.

•  

  The Post: He encouraged “every man and his dog” to target a specific hotel housing migrants and asylum seekers.

   

•  

  The Defense: His lawyer argued he had a broken foot and “no intention of taking part in violence”.

   

•  

  The Verdict: He was sentenced to 20 months in prison.

   
   

The Lesson: The law (and reality) recognizes that Speech is Action. If your words provide coordinates for a mob, you are not a commentator; you are a commander.

TRADECRAFT: The “Sock Puppet” Consensus

How to fake a movement.

Often, incitement relies on the illusion that “everyone agrees with me.” If a leader calls for violence and nobody likes the tweet, it looks weak. To fix this, they use Sock Puppets—fake accounts run by the same person to create artificial agreement.

Case Study: Tommy Robinson

•  

  The Glitch: In 2024, Robinson appeared to delete tweets where he was caught replying to his own post from an account he likely forgot to log out of.

   
   

•  

  The Text: “Dear Tommy, I have the utmost respect for you… bringing light to this vile state…”.

   

•  

  The Reality: He was talking to himself to create “Social Proof”.

   
   

The Analyst’s Eye: When you see a thread of people aggressively agreeing with a radical call to action, check the timestamps and the writing style. It is often one person in a room, amplifying their own voice to make the “Incitement” look like a “Revolution.”

THE CHECKLIST: Is it Free Speech or Incitement?

Use the “Brandenburg Test” standard (adapted for OSINT).

1. Intent: Is the speaker trying to cause lawless action? (e.g., “Go to this address”) .

    

2. Imminence: Is the action supposed to happen now? (e.g., “Tonight is the night”).

3. Likelihood: Is the audience actually listening? (e.g., Parlour had 1,500 friends and open privacy settings, making the threat real) .

    

If the answer to all three is YES, it is not Free Speech. It is a weapon.