This is a fundamental tenet of criminal law. Crimes are taken to be against society, not just against the victim, because it is in the interests of everyone to stop criminality, not just the victim. The state prosecutes, not the person in question.

> All in all, the height of the sentence surprises me as well.

Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).

Is it illegal to be ignorant in the UK?

It is also maybe difficult to get across to someone viewing in the US what a major news story Muamba's illness has been in the UK, the universal condemnation of the remarks, and more generally the efforts that have gone into eradicating racism from football in the UK. It is very difficult to divorce this from its societal context.

Yes, I am aware of this distinction. But still, saying "*hole" to someone wouldn't most likely be a crime (whats the proper English term for this), so I was just surprised about where the line is drawn.

> Race-related crimes are taken more seriously here (as opposed to the equivalent crimes without a race-hate component).

Yes, but 56 days of jail is a lot. Different countries, different handling. In Germany, this would most likely lead to a hefty fine and social work hours, which would still be a pain for a first offender.

I didn't see anything in the reported tweets that would be considered criminal in the US, though. We'd certainly jail someone for making real threats or inciting a crime, but not for mere racism.

Besides, from my cursory reading of the Brixton riots, the protestors were mad at police inaction, not hate speech.

The fact there was no right to free speech in English law until 1998 may also be related. (",)

I'm probably using out of context example here but WBC protests at dead soldiers funerals regularly, everyone knows that, and they're not touched. Though I suppose protest and direct prejudicial comments aren't in the same ballpark entirely.

It's all circumstantial I guess.

Well, it's not clear cut. What can constitute "racism" or not is quite open to interpretation.

Even statements of fact or plain arguments can be interpreted as racist.

For example, if you are against illegal immigration in my country (and many others) you are labeled as "racist", even if the reasons you are against it have nothing to do with race, but say, with border control, lack of supporting infrastructure for too many immigrants, possible use of minorities as a political weapon from surrounding countries, etc.

There is NO doubt the statements were racist in this case.