Teacher Fired Over Facebook Post Launches Legal Action
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A teacher in England who was fired after being accused of an Islamaphobic post on Facebook has launched a legal action.
Simon Pearson taught English to foreign students at Preston College, in Lancashire, when he said a social media post that led to a woman being handed a 15-month prison sentence after she was convicted of inciting racial hatred was "obviously wrong" but she "should not have been jailed."
He was dismissed after an internal investigation found that his post had the potential to bring the college into disrepute and has now filed legal action with an employment tribunal.
A file photo shows a Facebook logo on a laptop.
A file photo shows a Facebook logo on a laptop.
AP
Why It Matters
Pearson's fate has sparked sharp criticism from free speech advocates and reignited broader debates around freedom of expression in Britain. Critics argue that speech policing, especially on social media, increasingly leads to employment repercussions, even when comments are made outside the workplace and express personal beliefs.
Elon Musk has repeatedly criticized the U.K.'s approach to regulating speech on social media, particularly in the context of arrests related to online comments.
"At this rate, the UK Government will pretty soon be executing people for liking a meme!" he posted on X, formerly Twitter, in January.
The U.S. State Department has previously spoken out about the same case as Pearson, saying in May that is was "concerned about infringements on freedom of expression."
What To Know
Pearson, 56, was fired after he posted a comment about Lucy Connolly, a woman jailed for racially inflammatory comments in the wake of the Southport riots—nationwide unrest triggered by the murder of three girls during a dance class and misinformation about the suspect being an asylum seeker.
Connolly, the wife of a local Conservative Party politician, wrote on X: "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care…if that makes me racist so be it."
She was convicted of inciting racial hatred, handed a 31-month sentence and ordered to serve 40 percent of it behind bars in October 2024.
Pearson wrote in a Facebook comment that while Connolly's post was "obviously wrong," she "should not have been jailed" and said this was part of "two tier policy from the top down."
The phrase "two-tier policing" has become a politically charged accusation in the U.K., often used to criticize perceived inconsistencies in how law enforcement handles speech, protest, or criminal behavior depending on the race, religion, or political identity of the individuals involved.
Critics of "two-tier policing" argue that authorities are more lenient toward minority groups—particularly in cases involving Islamist or pro-Palestinian demonstrators, while opponents argue that this framing often serves as a dog whistle, disguising racial resentment or Islamophobia under the banner of fairness and justice.
A Muslim representative of the National Education Union at Preston College made a formal complaint about Pearson's post accusing it of being "Islamophobic" and "racially discriminatory."
This triggered the investigation that ended in Pearson being fired. He is now claiming wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
"I cannot allow what has happened to me to go unchallenged. It is a grave injustice that should concern everybody who cares about freedom," he told the British newspaper The Telegraph. "I am determined to fight for justice and for the freedom to raise legitimate concerns in public and private as part of national debates on extremely serious issues that impact us all."
Newsweek has contacted Preston College, via email, for comment.
What People Are Saying
Simon Pearson's full Facebook comment: "The woman who made that appalling comment about the mosque in Southport is obviously wrong. But where is the jail sentence for the Labour MP calling for people to have their throats slit. Where is the justice meted out against those thugs who beat up the police at Manchester airport? She should not have been jailed for that. People presumed the worst and were outraged by the killing of three little girls.
"It was wrong but how many Islamists plots and crimes have been experienced in our country. The Manchester Arena bombing, Lee Rigby, etc... Certain sections of society calling for the genocide of Jews from the river to the sea are also free to express their opinions and make Jewish people afraid to walk the streets.
"There is a two tier policy from the top down. Has our country's woke leadership lost its mind? Should we be seeking asylum in America?"
Founder of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton said: "The most striking aspect of this case is that the teacher was sacked at the behest of the NEU. Once upon a time, trade unions used to stick up for workers threatened with the sack for speaking out of turn. Now, they side with management and actively try to get workers sacked, including their dues-paying members."
Head of the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division at the U.K.'s Crown Prosecution Service, Frank Ferguson, said about the Connolly case: "Using threatening, abusive or insulting language to rile up racism online is unacceptable and is breaking the law."
The U.S. State Department commented on the Connolly case in May, saying: "We can confirm that we are monitoring this matter. The United States supports freedom of expression at home and abroad, and remains concerned about infringements on freedom of expression."
What Happens Next
An employment tribunal will decide whether Pearson's dismissal was fair and lawful. A date for the hearing has yet to be confirmed.
The case comes amid wider debate over free speech rights in the U.K., particularly as public figures such as Musk have expressed concern about government responses to social media posts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Stanford Daily sues Trump administration over deportation threats
Stanford's student newspaper sued the Trump administration on Wednesday for threatening to deport any noncitizen who criticizes Israel or U.S. foreign policy, saying the government is violating freedom of speech and intimidating campus journalists into censoring their own articles. 'In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,' lawyers for the Stanford Daily, the university's independent 133-year-old publication, wrote in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Jose. They said staff writers holding legal U.S. visas 'are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their immigration status.' One editor resigned from the newspaper, another editor and present and former reporters have asked to have their articles removed from the website and 'international students have also largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists,' the suit said. It was filed a day after Stanford officials announced that they might lay off 363 non-teaching employees this fall because of a $750 million tax increase imposed by President Donald Trump's budget bill. The lawsuit is among multiple legal challenges to the Trump administration's attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters and their universities. A central issue, cited by the newspaper's lawyers, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that he can order deportation of any noncitizen for statements he considers 'anti-American' or 'anti-Israel.' Rubio cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that allows the secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen's legal status if the secretary decides the person's 'beliefs, statements or associations … compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.' He invoked that provision against Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was arrested in March and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days before a federal judge ordered his release. Other campus activists have also been jailed, and Stanford reported that the visas of six students were revoked less than two weeks after Rubio's announcement in March. The lawsuit said Rubio's claim that a student's criticism of Israel harms a 'compelling United States foreign policy interest' is questionable — but regardless, his actions violate the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects noncitizens under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling. 'The First Amendment cements America's promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,' wrote the attorneys, Marc Van Der Hout of San Francisco and Conor Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They asked a federal judge for an injunction that would halt the threats of deportation against critics of Israel or U.S. foreign policy. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, called the suit 'baseless.' 'DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable,' McLaughlin said in a statement. She said the United States has 'no room' for 'the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers.'
San Francisco Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Military base shootings have ranged from isolated incidents to workplace violence and terrorism
ATLANTA (AP) — The shooting of five U.S. Army soldiers at a base in Georgia on Wednesday is the latest in a growing list of violent incidents at American military installations over the years. Shootings have ranged from isolated incidents between service members to attacks on bases to mass-casualty events, such as the shooting by an Army psychiatrist at Texas's Ford Hood in 2009 that left 13 people dead. Here is a look at some of the shootings at U.S. military bases in recent years: In December, a National Guard soldier was charged with murder after authorities said he shot a man at a former girlfriend's residence on the grounds of Fort Gordon. The base outside of Augusta, Georgia, is home to the U.S. Army Cyber Command. It was formerly known as Fort Eisenhower. In June 2020, a woman and a man were killed in a shooting at the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The woman's parents later told media outlet KJZZ in Phoenix that she was the victim of domestic violence. In May 2020, a gunman tried to speed through a security gate at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, opening fire and wounding a sailor who was a member of base security, authorities said. Security officers shot and killed the attacker, Adam Salim Alsahli, a Corpus Christi resident who had been a student at a local community college. The FBI said at the time that the shooting was being investigated as a 'terror-related incident.' A group that monitors online activity of jihadists said Alsahli voiced support for hard-line clerics. On Dec. 6, 2019, a Saudi Air Force officer who was training at a Navy base in Pensacola, Florida, killed three U.S. sailors and wounded eight other people in a shooting that U.S. officials described as an act of terrorism. The country's top federal law enforcement officials said the gunman, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, had been in touch with al-Qaida operatives about planning and tactics. Alshamrani was killed by a sheriff's deputy. On Dec. 4, 2019, a U.S. Navy sailor used his service rifle to shoot three civilian shipyard workers at the Pearl Harbor military base in Hawaii, killing two of them before killing himself with his service pistol. Gabriel Antonio Romero, 22, of San Antonio, Texas, was said to be unhappy with his commanders and undergoing counseling, although a motive for the shooting was not determined. In February 2017, a sailor was fatally shot at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach by a security officer after he crashed through a station gate and went to his squadron's hangar. Seaman Robert Colton Wright was reported to be 'yelling and causing damage' and moving aggressively toward security officers until one of the officers fired, striking him. Wright worked as an information systems technician for Strike Fighter Squadron 81. In April 2016, an airman fatally shot his commander before shooting himself at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland. Military investigators said Tech Sgt. Steven Bellino, 41, confronted Lt. Col. William Schroeder in an office before the two struggled, and Schroeder was shot multiple times. The men, both veterans of the U.S. Special Operations Command, were in the Air Force's elite Battlefield Airmen program at Lackland. In July 2015, four Marines and a sailor were killed by Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tennessee, who opened fire at a recruiting center in Chattanooga. He then drove several miles away to a Navy and Marine reserve center, where he shot and killed the Marines and wounded the sailor, who later died. Abdulazeez was shot to death by police. In April 2014, an Army soldier gunned down three other military men at Fort Hood in Texas before killing himself. Authorities said that Spc. Ivan Lopez had an argument with colleagues in his unit before opening fire. In September 2013, a defense contract employee and former Navy reservist used a valid pass to get onto the Washington Navy Yard. Authorities said Aaron Alexis killed 12 people before he was killed in a gunbattle with police, authorities said. The Washington Navy Yard is an administrative center for the U.S. Navy and the oldest naval installation in the country. In November 2009, Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded more than 30 at Fort Hood. He said he was angry about being deployed to Afghanistan and wanted to protect Islamic and Taliban leaders from U.S. troops. It was the deadliest attack on a domestic military installation in U.S. history. The Department of Defense called the attack an act of workplace violence, not terrorism. ___
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
