But that's just silly isn't it, come on. People can speculate about crime and that is fine, we do it on here for example but on here it's done in a non-serious and low level way which does no harm. Nothing in this forum is likely to prejudice a trial in progress, you may as well tell it to the wall.
The people who were locked up weren't doing anything in a low-key way. They were trying to achieve the exact opposite which is to get people to 'rise up' or they just wanted to loudly spout hate and antagonise minorities. In the end they got what they wanted and there was violence so they were jailed, I don't see how this is controversial.
Do you not find it ironic that many of the people that you're defending on free speech actually turned out to have a huge array of previous offences? Some of them were actually literal nonces who went out to riot about a child murderer, even more ironic! Do you not think this is actually the reason why some were sent to prison?
When it comes to contempt very few people get this far. Only Tommy Robinson has been accused of contempt and he's now serving 18 months for it because what he did was plainly contempt. If however what he did was actually genuine free speech or journalism then why didn't he challenge it?
If a 12 person jury would agree that it wasn't contempt then why on earth did he plead guilty? Why did he also grift £100k for his defence only to forget defending himself and just plead guilty? Like all the others jailed, the reality is he pled guilty because he was otherwise going to get put away for a very long time.