"Calling for, specifically, the burning down of a hotel...that could potentially be a little bit more of a direct call for violence." US conservative political commentator Dave Rubin concedes that, even from an American perspective, Lucy Connolly "would be in trouble". #Newsnight

She said "burn ...hotels, for all I care". If I said to someone "jump in the lake, for all I care" is that a direct call for them to jump in a lake? How bad was her lawyer?

Except she didn't. It takes Olympic level mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion.

She didn’t do that. She said she didn’t care if someone burned down a hotel. It was not an instruction

Lucy Connolly tweet would undoubtedly be constitutionally protected in the United States.

It's not a direct call though. US court would throw it outin the end.

She didn't. Why do you keep lying.

The tweet was neither directly calling for violence or criminal damage nor specific about location or time. She was made an example of and that’s why it’s wrong. Wholly disproportionate punishment for a deleted angry tweet.

Meet Liam. School officials punished Liam for wearing a shirt that challenged the government’s narrative—a troubling example of free speech being censored. Don’t let your rights slip away. Get our FREE “Know Your Rights” guide and stand firm in your convictions.

Well it’s good to know what side the BBC is on as that’s not really his conclusion.

She said 'for all I care', which means, legally, it wasn't incitement. If there had been a trial, it would have been dismissed. She had bad legal advice. She should never have pleaded guilty.

"...for all I care." That phrase is key here.