Comedian Reginald D Hunter is being prosecuted over alleged antisemitic social media posts he sent to a Brighton campaigner, a court heard.
The 56-year-old US stand-up is accused of three counts of sending an offensive communication on three different occasions – on August 24, September 10 and September 11 last year – to Heidi Bachram on X, formerly Twitter.
He was due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday but Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram issued a warrant for him to attend court on July 7 in his absence.
Prosecutor Donal Lawler told the court that Hunter is a “well-known comedian” who is being privately prosecuted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) charity.
It is alleged Hunter sent a computer-generated sexual image to Ms Bachram in August last year, with the charges claiming it was “grossly offensive”.
On September 10 he is said to have tweeted Ms Bachram saying: “THIS is why I HATE these people and am committed to their destruction not because JEW hatred Not even because they are European Nazis pretending to be JEWS Because of all the lying. Mama HATED liars and bequeathed that hatred to ALL of her children.”
The following day, it is alleged he sent another message saying: “Hey sugar. I don’t hate you for being an agent of evil. Not new Not even uncommon. You being a liar a persistent liar KNOWING the truth, is why I will see you and your kind ended, even if it costs me EVERYTHING. You are not even a JEW. Run tell that.”
Hunter regularly tours the UK and has appeared on comedy panel shows Never Mind The Buzzcocks, Have I Got News For You and 8 Out Of 10 Cats.
Mr Lawler told the court on Friday that the comedian was due to begin a tour of England and Wales tomorrow.
The prosecutor said Hunter was scheduled to do a gig in London on July 6, adding that his legal team may be able to serve him his court summons in person at the venue on that date.
The CAA describes itself as an organisation of volunteers which works to “expose and counter antisemitism through education and zero-tolerance enforcement of the law”.
Stephen Silverman, the group’s director of investigations and enforcement, said: “This is one of a number of private prosecutions that we are bringing, and there will be more to say on the case in due course.”
Hunter’s representatives have been approached for comment.
Remove his visa and send him back to the USA.
Anti-zionism is not anti-Semitism.
Another anti semite who thinks he can get away with it because he’s famous. I hope he’s proved wrong.
Private prosecution? Now we have self appointed speech sheriff’s serving up notices to people they don’t like? How did we end up in this dark place?
We’ve had private prosecutions for hundreds of years (so people could take someone to court without police/magistrates charges) – it was enshrined in law in 1985 way before the woke mind virus you’re presumably against even existed.
Israel is a Failed Terrorist State & calling out their war crimes is NOT antisemetic whatsoever
Well I imagine he and his council will be feeling fairly relaxed right now.
While there is a degree of protection in place for registered news agencies that is accompanied by an expectation that if something is deemed offensive enough to be taken to court then it should not be published verbatim as there is an implied assumption that to do so will likely cause equivalent offence to the public.
Despite even our CPS and repeated Mob Handed Door Kicking squads smashing their way in to people’s lives over hurty words looking at this and, finally, after a supreme court judgment from last year explicitly telling them to pack it in or prepare for expensive suits against them for which they will not have the assumption of acting in the public interest & within the law, said. No thanks. We’re not touching this one.
Based on the civil case having it’s foundations, obstentsively, built on the precise words, in the identical structure and in the same order. His lawyers now just need to produce this article, alongside a sworn affidavit or statement from the editor confirming no record of an official complaint being lodged by the plaintiff. That leaves two obvious observations of events.b
1. The basis on the suit could be considered spurious or unfairly targeting the defendent as an identical public record was published within the location of the plaintiff and no comparable course of action or litigation was sought. .
2. The thresholds required for it to satisfy as causing offence to a degree that is actionable have not been met due to ‘1.’
I’m NOT defending the guys actions when it comes to the repeated direct and personal communications. But his defense just got easier
Cancel him