Hacker News Reader

Comment by chirau | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the big deal. I'm all for it. I know plenty of countries where such unnecessary and unfounded attempts at publicity and attention are illegal, including my own home country. Saying he's a gay clown is pretty much fake news. Everybody hates fake news.

View on HN

Everybody hates fake news.

Well there's this also thing known as "satire", you know.

Actual satire is one thing, but can a childish insult such as calling someone a "gay clown" really be classified as satire?

I don't know how else to put this, but: yes. Yes it can.

scares me that people on this forum, of all places, do not understand this extremely salient point.

Just as I expected, I'm downvoted into oblivion.

Anyway, maybe in the US there are no limits to satire, but I am sure most of the rest of the world has limits to satire. Ridiculing the premier of a nation in such a manner does not in any way aid to the strength of face of that nation to the rest of the world. Just look at how the ridiculousness of the Trump satire makes a joke out of the US system. Just saying...

More downvotes in 3, 2, 1 ....

ALSO, TO YOUR POINT: Who is the judge of what is satire and what is fake news? If Donald Trump called Obama an illegal immigrant today, or better still a wiretapper, is that satire or false accusation? Could he possibly eventually defend himself saying it was satire, his own type albeit? This whole satire thing is a slippery slope. It must have limits.

Replace "ridiculing" with "criticizing" in your third sentence. The statement is also equally true - criticism of a world leader from within their own country certainly doesn't add strength to the public perception of a nation.

But do you see how dangerous that would be to make illegal, and how it applies to "ridiculing" as well?

Criticism has room for discussion. Criticism can be destructive and constructive. Ridiculing is never constructive. What does ridiculing yield? What benefit does ridiculing have?

You say that criticism can be destructive and constructive, which is true. Ridicule, defined as "[applying] contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior" can swiftly and temptingly become "deconstructive criticism". Or, "criticism that I find humiliating because I don't like it".

Does most ridiculing, aside from satire, have a benefit? Probably not. But it would be a mistake to make any speech without benefit illegal, especially since it is just so easy for anyone in power to conveniently select people for jailtime when legislation uses such broad words as "ridicule".

What's your point? Not only is ridicule non-beneficial, it's destructive. Which is why I wouldn't blame any system that chooses to punish it.

It's not the satire of Trump that makes us a joke....

Illegitimate should not imply illegal, because there is no fine line, and this kind of legislation all too quickly leads to non-democracy.

I don't see the big deal. I'm all for it. I know plenty of countries where unnecessary protesting and unfounded attempts at publicity are illegal. Criticizing the government is pretty much fake news. Everybody hates protestors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com