An angry narrative has been building within the American Right over the past week about the incarceration of Tommy Robinson, a British anti-Islam activist. It goes something like this.

The UK is in the grip of politically correct appeasers, if not outright Islamists. A double standard is supposedly applied whereby jihadi fanatics get away with spewing hatred, but anyone who criticizes them gets banged up. Robinson, we read, was reporting on the trial of a Muslim rape gang when he was bundled away, tried with frightening speed by a kangaroo court, sentenced to 13 months and whisked off to a prison where he is likely to be killed by Muslim convict gangs. Free speech, we are told, has died in England.

That, more or less, is the version of events presented on Fox and Drudge, and in tweets from Donald Trump Jr., Roseanne Barr and dozens of conservative commentators. The story may, among some of my American friends, have passed the point of correction. When an account is repeated often enough in good faith, any dissenting note starts to sound jarring. So perhaps you will dismiss what follows as the whining of a faux-conservative pantywaist dhimmi.

Still, here goes.

Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was imprisoned on 25 May for contempt of court, after livestreaming a report from Leeds Crown Court, including footage of participants in a trial. He had previously been given a suspended sentence for the same offense. On both occasions, the trials were of Muslim men accused of sexual offenses against non-Muslim girls.

Here is how the judge in that earlier case rounded off his judgment when giving Robinson a suspended sentence almost precisely a year ago: “In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as ‘Muslim pedophiles, ‘Muslim rapists’ and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?”

Maybe I’m being cynical, but doesn’t it strike you as likely that, in deliberately violating that court order, Robinson was aiming to achieve precisely the outcome he has now achieved? That he was seeking to provoke a criminal conviction that would turn him into a “free speech martyr” and — let’s not beat about the bush — boost his earnings on the American speaker circuit?

You might argue that reporting restrictions on trials are intrinsically wrong. Fair enough. But it is not uncommon for British courts to operate under temporary restrictions when media coverage might prejudice jurors or other participants.

Publicly assuming the guilt of a defendant in advance could invalidate the trial, and thus allow the genuinely guilty to escape on a technicality. You might regard such rules as onerous, but they apply to all reporters, not just Robinson.

Likewise, you might think that 13 months is a stiff sentence for contempt of court relative to the sentences served by, say, repeat conviction burglars. I agree. But, just as cops hate people who shoot cops, so judges have a peculiar loathing for people who violate court protocol, and prison sentences for contempt are common.

What about the idea, so widespread on Twitter, that there is a double standard? One typical critic posted an image of angry British Muslims carrying placards that called for the beheading of those who insulted Islam, and asked “Thinking of Tommy Robinson being jailed for standing in the street talking into a microphone, how many of these fine upstanding citizens were arrested?”

I’ll leave the response to Nazir Afzal, who was chief prosecutor at the time that image was taken: “At least 5 immediately and several more later. I then charged the most serious offenders with Soliciting Murder rather than just Public Order offenses. They went to prison for between 4 and 6 years. You don't see those placards anymore on UK streets.”

For what it’s worth, there have been occasions when Robinson could fairly claim to have been harshly treated because of who he is. The incident which pushed him into politics — when the police in his home town of Luton allowed a disgusting protest by local Muslim extremists against a military parade, but wouldn’t allow a counter-demonstration — was a clear case of double-standards. But this latest incident is not.

Tommy Robinson and his followers often demand that immigrants “obey our laws” — and, of course, they are quite right. It would be intolerable to apply the criminal justice system differently because of someone’s race, religion or opinions.

And that is why, in the end, it is right for Robinson to serve his time.