Hacker News Reader

Comment by elsonrodriguez | Hacker News Reader

It is noteworthy that the "meme" being shared was pride flags arranged in a swastika pattern, and that the person who originally made the image runs the Bad Law Project, whose webpage(https://www.badlawproject.com) contains statements such as this:

>Bad law is political ideology disguised as law. When we see police officers marching with demonstrators and waving political flags and chanting activist slogans - that is bad law.

>Our Equality Act 2010 is bad law, because it does not treat all people equally and can be interpreted in such a way as to discriminate against people with certain views or beliefs.

One of the people they feature on their website as oppressed by "Bad Law" is Calvin Robinson, who has this to say on twitter:

>“No LGB without T” is a highly political statement. What does a mental health issue have to do with sexuality?

>The trans movement is discriminatory towards women’s rights and female-only spaces.

>Anime is degenerate. There’s a reason most trans activists use anime avatars.

As far as I can tell it's an anti LGBT organization, and focuses on legal defense of people who engage in hate speech, and the repeal of anti discrimination laws.

Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

View on HN

> Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.

I could be wrong, but I think there's a specific violent threat embedded in calling trans people nazis - nazis are still the simplest shorthand terminology for "unambiguously evil oppressors whom it is acceptable to violently oppose." No one wrings their hands and bemoans the Allies' treatment of the nazis in WW2. To this very day it's hard to answer "is it okay to punch a nazi" negatively- most people would probably agree that the nazi had it coming.

That kind of sentiment makes this whole "trans nazis are infiltrating and controlling the cis lesbian and gay rights movement" accusation a little scarier, in my opinion, due to context - portraying your ideological opponents as nazis as prelude to violence, and trans people are already the target of plenty of violent transphobic attacks.

(I still don't think this arrest is warranted, absent some sort of other evidence that he intends to do more than call people names online... but there are very specific connotations to calling trans people nazis, that I feel like it's fair to call out aside from mere 'political beliefs')

I can't speak to the UK, but in the US, the term nazi gets thrown around a lot. For example, the Left calls Right nazis and Right calls the Left nazis, etc. As such, it's hard for me, and I'd imagine a lot of HN users, to consider calling someone a nazi as a violent threat.

We used to call one of our friends a beer nazi. As in he would try to force you to drink beer.

> I could be wrong, but I think there's a specific violent threat embedded in calling trans people nazis

There is not now and likely never will be a politician who has not at some point compared their adversaries to Nazis. Do we put them all behind bars, or only the ones you disagree with?

What do we do with the trans activist comparing those who oppose them with Nazis?

There's really no need for a deep ideological discussion on the topic of Nazis. In modern times, the phrase "everyone I don't like it is a Nazi" sums up the definition.

> No it's not, it's literally not relevant (or at least shouldn't be). You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.

Isn't the idea that the intent behind actions being legally relevant pretty well established? There's a difference between different degrees of murder and between murder and manslaughter based not on whether the actions themselves differed, but whether the intent to kill was there (and not even that, but how _long_ it was held, e.g. "spur of the moment" versus premeditated). It seems like in any case where intent is relevant, looking at the context of the accused would be necessary to determine the scope of the crime.

Intent behind speech that "caused someone anxiety" should be entirely irrelevant, because nobody should ever be arrested for it. Period.

That's not what I'm referring to; that's just in the headline. The context I'm referring to is in the parent of this comment chain, which describes both the actual image being shared and some of the writings of the accused along with others who they feature on their website. I think there's room for debate about whether that context is relevant, but it's not what I'm responding to.

Yes, mens rea (state of mind/intent) is part of many crimes.

But we're not talking about murder, we're talking about a social media post that "caused someone anxiety." Whether intent matters for other (actual) crimes is irrelevant.

Intent and beliefs are not the same thing.

> No it's not, it's literally not relevant. You are saying a person's political beliefs are legally relevant to if they should be arrested or not.

In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause. I'm not taking one side or the other, personally, but this is an opinion question settled by the voters.

That's not what OP was arguing, though. OP appeared to be suggesting it was ok to arrest someone on flimsy grounds, because they were participating in a meme promoted by an organization with harmful ideology. I'm not sure what other motive we can ascribe to that post, really.

Arresting someone on flimsy grounds is pretty well protected by decades of case law. The police are granted a wide degree of latitude over whom they can arrest and for what reason. Sometimes this is abused but there are limits to how much damage you can do with this abuse.

The fact a fairly minor inconvenience was suffered to somebody with a pretty sick ideology certainly means I wont be clutching my pearls. Im sure the government did 1000 worse things happened today that didnt catch the attention of the editor of the mirror.

> The fact a fairly minor inconvenience was suffered to somebody with a pretty sick ideology certainly means I wont be clutching my pearls.

This feels like Martin Niemöller's poem, personified. I agree that this guy has a pretty sick ideology, but what if one of us posted something snarky/disrespectful about, say, pedophile religious leaders, and someone got offended, claiming we were being disrespectful toward their religion? I doubt you'd be so calmly dismissive of an arrest in this case, even if it was a "fairly minor inconvenience".

I know UK law is different, but at least in the US, just the fact that you have been arrested, even if no charges are ever filed, can cause you problems down the road. Just last week I was applying to renew my Global Entry subscription (for non-Americans who may not be familiar, it's a lame-I-have-to-do-this-yet-useful program to streamline re-entry into the US after traveling abroad), and there was a question that specifically asked if I had ever been arrested, even if the record for such an arrest had been expunged or sealed. Fortunately I was able to truthfully answer "no" to that, but had I been caught up in something ridiculous like the article describes, I would have had to answer "yes", and possibly be denied a useful government service.

You might also consider that a "minor inconvenience", but I'm sure there are more severe examples where merely having a no-charges-filed arrest on your record can have some dystopian consequences for a person.

> Im sure the government did 1000 worse things happened today that didnt catch the attention of the editor of the mirror.

That's just whataboutism. So we shouldn't care about what are perhaps minor abuses, just because there are worse abuses?

Whataboutism is definitely the most abused term of 2022.

A reasonably charitable interpretation of OP's comment suggests they were not suggesting that at all.

I don't see that at all, and invoking "charitable interpretation" is a bit disingenuous. Why bring up the context if not to suggest that this arrest was justified because of the person's ideology?

I don't think it's ever disingenuous to invoke charitable interpretation when an uncharitable interpretation is made.

The comment was giving context around why the guy's actions might be considered morally reprehensible (or more simply, "wrong"), and was not in any way suggesting that that made an arrest justified. In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made.

If the reader makes that leap (here despite the comment author's warning), then that's on the reader, and it's exactly why charitable interpretation is important. Without charitable interpretation, people put words in each others' mouths, talk past each other, or don't hear each other.

It's essential to civil discourse in general: most of what most people write or say will be less than perfect, so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. So no, it's not disingenuous at all to bring this up. (But isn't doing this exhausting? My goodness is it ever! Yes.)

Note, crucially, that a "charitable interpretation" is not necessarily the "most likely interpretation" or "the interpretation you believe is the most accurate". It is the interpretation that puts the other person in the most favourable light, while remaining mostly (yes, this often requires flexibility and some approximation) logically consistent with what was actually said or written. In this particular case, a charitable interpretation can be made by simply not putting words in the author's mouth: his text is entirely consistent with the charitable interpretation.

"Disingenuous" was definitely an unfair characterization, and I apologize for that.

> In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made.

I don't think it's fair to prime someone with a bunch of negative information, and then turn around and say "no, no! I'm not trying to prejudice your thinking at all!"

To me, I think all this context was entirely unnecessary. This article is able police excess -- or, really, legal excess. I would much rather have a discussion about whether or not the sorts of laws that lead to arrests like this are reasonable and acceptable in a free society. Instead -- and I agree that doing this is exhausting! -- we are not only muddying the waters by giving people an excuse to say "yeah, but this person deserved it because they are anti-trans", but we are going into a meta-meta discussion about whether or not someone meant to muddy the waters or not. Which, IMO, is entirely irrelevant: the waters have been muddied, and this entire subthread is a stupid waste of time, time that I regret wasting (but, given who I am, I know I will waste again sometime in the future).

To me, the point is not "this guy said some stuff that muddied the waters, but he didn't intend to muddy the waters, so it's ok". The point is that the waters have been muddied with irrelevant context, and instead of having an interesting discussion about freedom of speech, we're talking about how shitty an anti-trans group is. Which, ok, sure, this group does indeed seem pretty shitty, but I don't come to HN because I want to get into a mood where need to yet again get pissed at shitty transphobic people.

> so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness.

This two-way communication is a two-way street. We should not put all of the burden on the reader. The author should have a responsibility to be as clear as possible, and avoid posting things that are guaranteed to throw a discussion off-topic.

I don't disagree! I think a fairer criticism of the parent comment might have been, for example, something like:

"The relevant question is not whether this person did something reprehensible or wrong or even harmful, but rather whether the police's actions were proportional, or whether there was a legal basis for an arrest... Or even whether the current legal framework is how it ought to be."

The goal in the above paragraph is to:

- neutralize any unfair rhetorical impact of the parent comment

- allow for the parent comment to be read charitably

- argue directly to the relevance of the point, and help refocus or reframe the discussion

Now query whether I'd be successful at any of this... But I think that's how I would approach it!

I think your criticism demonstrates a willingness to only criticize one side of an argument, the one you happen to disagree with.

You ask for a charitable interpretation of OP, but don't give a charitable interpretation of the response.

To demonstrate, even if OP didn't mean to imply the interpretation as everyone sees it, it's highly upvoted and natural to interpret it as such.

The fact that it's upvoted demonstrates that many people do agree with the perspective of that interpretation. In other words, even if the interpretation is not correct (a very dubious claim), it's clearly a popular perspective. Yet you're not willing to engage with it.

I'm actually not on anyone's "side" here, and I provided an example of criticism I thought would be fairer. I also explained (I believe quite clearly) why I thought one criticism was valid and the other was not.[1]

The popularity of a comment does not change its meaning.

---

[1] In fact, I would like to point out that the alternative criticism I have just proposed (the one on which you are commenting) is essentially the same one you yourself made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32428259

It would appear we're actually of the same opinion on the substance of the parent comment, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Is it at all possible that you may have projected a little bit?

Nonsense. That is what they were saying.

> In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause.

I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.

I'm not GP.

That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."

Apologies, I didn't mean it negatively or anything, just for folks following along.

It’s relevant for me.

If you tweet or retweet Nazi propaganda or holocaust denial material and live here in Austria then you may be prosecuted. I’m not a super fan of these restrictions on free speech but I do note that I live in a place where there are a few and they are important to us here.

Edit: There is some amusing irony to being downvoted for this reply which only states my own personal interest in hearing some information from someone and doesn’t tell anyone else what to think ;)

> Edit: There is some amusing irony to being downvoted for this reply which only states my own personal interest in hearing some information from someone and doesn’t tell anyone else what to think ;)

Being downvoted is not equal to government prosecution. You can be told people don't like your opinion and just say so, compared to having police knock on your door over it. I don't agree with what the guy from the article is advocating, but I do agree that he should not be prosecuted/arrested for what he did.

Was this actually Nazi propaganda? I think the meme is trying to say the trans community acts like Nazis and Nazis are bad.

I don’t really have enough info to make a fair judgment. I only wanted to provide my perspective that I personally do find the context the GP provided relevant to the story even if they don’t. Wasn’t an attack or being contrary or anything.

This clearly was not "Nazi propaganda". Calling your opponent a Nazi does not imply that Nazis are good. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes, it is relevant in that context. Europeans tend to hold the view that Nazis are deplorable and don't deserve a voice.

Being a German, I tend to agree.

There is such a thing as being beyond the pale.

Funnily enough the phrase beyond the pale is, perhaps apocryphally, said to originate from Ireland. The pale was an area around Dublin under the control of the English in the Middle Ages. Only “barbarian Irish” lived outside, beyond the area. I’m from the part outside ;)

While that would be a specific instance of it, my understanding is that "the pale" would refer more generally to the fence, or palisade, that encircled a town (made up of wooden stakes, or "pales"; this is also the origin of "to impale"), and "beyond the pale" simply meant "outside the protection of the town", and thus, metaphorically, outside of what's right and proper.

....In fact, Wiktionary states [0] "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, there is insufficient evidence that the term originally referred to the English Pale, the part of Ireland directly under the control of the English government in the Late Middle Ages".

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/beyond_the_pale

Is it really? Someone retweeted something, that's controversial but not illegal and got arrested. The context does not clarify anything but divides.

I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either, but if people get arrested for speaking their minds that's the pathway to fascism.

> I don't want to be arrested for pro-trans tweets either

And that's the thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people (probably even the guy who was arrested in the article) who could claim a pro-trans tweet "caused them anxiety", and get someone arrested, or at least subject to a required police interview, which isn't much better. I am dumbfounded that people seem to think this situation is ok, and the UK law in question is sane.

I think it's because you're only hearing from the more militant internet-comfortable commenters who enforcement currently favors. When it's swung back on them in due time--and it will be, as it always is--then suddenly it'll be a grave injustice.

I think that organization is gross, Robinson is a bad human being, and the meme is disgusting, but whether or not someone should be arrested for "causing someone anxiety" is not "another debate". It's flat-out ridiculous.

It's not an anti-LGBT organization. It is an organization concerned that the police have embraced trans ideologies that don't have the support of most of the UK population. It is in many ways similar to the LGB Alliance, which has a similar position with regard to the T in LGBT. Many of its supporters are gay, including a large number of lesbian feminists who support its goals.

The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation, and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group.

Make of that what you will.

> The LGB Alliance is funded by the Heritage Foundation

No it is not. Please don't spread mistruths.

> and are widely regarded in the UK as a thinly disguised hate group

I doubt that most people in the UK have heard of this charity. Also this is a very disingenuous view of their aims.

(Non-combative) do you have a non-partisan source? - I ask because I’ve seen that and other similar statements (“The LGB Alliance is an astroturfed organisation”) on Twitter, and wonder if they’re objectively true or exaggerations / distortions from opposing activists?

It's almost impossible to find non-partisan sources on culture war debates and the definition of "astroturfed" is debatable. It is true that the LGB Alliance was formed by a small group of primarily lesbians who strongly disagreed with positions held longstanding LGBT groups that had historically campaigned for lesbian (and gay) rights. It is also true that the Heritage Foundation, more noted for sponsoring anti-gay groups, is its primary sponsor, and that the group's primary activity is campaigning against gender recognition and access to treatment for gender dysphoria. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the group is quite popular with conservative journalists and highly unpopular with most lesbian and gay people familiar with them.

> is also true that the Heritage Foundation […] is its primary sponsor,

I can’t find evidence of this, and the LGBA website says their primary funding comes from individual donations.

https://staging.lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/gary-powell-wh...

The above article makes this point:

Why would it donate to an organisation that campaigns for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, that has an overwhelmingly left-wing membership, and that was founded by two left-wing lesbian feminists?

- given the LGBA’s position is:

“(W)e do not, and will not, forge links with, or accept funding from, any organisation… that seeks to undermine women’s reproductive rights.”

- which the Heritage Foundation oppose, I gather.

I’m inclined to believe the Heritage Foundation link is a untruth, to be honest. Given the LGBA’s charitable status I guess we’ll get definitive evidence at some point.

I will backtrack a little and concede that it's not evidenced that the LGBA itself taking the cash, but here's its founder talking about how the wider movement she represents wouldn't have even been possible in the United States without Heritage Foundation backing https://twitter.com/BevJacksonAuth/status/115396424210361548... (not her only tweet defending the need for feminists to work with the Heritage Foundation)

I think being such a niche cause that only your notional political enemies pursuing a divide and conquer strategy will work with you internationally is what most people mean when they accuse a cause of being "astroturfed"

[For the avoidance of doubt I fully agree that in other respects, they do not share the same political views and that they are not closet hardline antifeminists in disguise]

The LGB Alliance is a recognized charity and is chaired by a lesbian woman.

Charity regulation in the UK is ... Lax.

> that don't have the support of most of the UK population

[citation needed]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/...

It’s a tricky read, but a gist might be that most Brits are generally well-meaning, fairly uninformed, and tend to be conservative when asked questions about specific scenarios:

“Recognition: most Britons say that people should be able to change their social gender, but are split on whether they should be able to change their legal gender”

“Process: Britons oppose making it easier to legally change gender“

“Access to sport: Britons oppose transgender athletes taking part in sporting events for their new gender”

“Access to treatment: Britons are split on the NHS providing hormone therapy for trans people, and tend to oppose it providing gender reassignment surgery”

Ah, but that's a Yougov poll, so carefully selected from Daily Heil readers.

You're right, they're not exclusively anti-LGBT. Looking at their cases page, they are also "Anti Woke".

https://www.badlawproject.com/cases

They highlight a case with Amy Gallahger, who is an adamant "anti-CRT" activist per her Twitter.

So it seems they were focused on other things, but have pivoted to anti-trans activism(hence the amount of Pride imagery on their front page).

Tactically it makes sense. They are following the lead of other such organizations by focusing on anti-trans rhetoric, as it is currently more palatable, before pivoting back to marginalizing other minorities.

You've just described an anti-LGBT organization while claiming it is not

You've implied that a bunch of gay people are anti-gay because of the gay organization they belong to that advocates for gays.

They're not "anti-gay", they're anti-the-wrong-sort-of-gay. You're only gay if you're the kind of gay they approve of.

I claim that they're anti-LGBT, not anti-gay

They are pro-LGB. If you think that means they're anti-LGBT that's on you.

You can't reasonably equate anti-LGBT with consdering that the T doesn't belong with the LGB.

I do genuinely believe that "consdering that the T doesn't belong with the LGB" makes you "anti-LGBT".

How do you figure? It doesn't require you to be anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, or anti-trans, in order to question why we lump together people who are homosexual/bisexual (which describes the types of people someone wants to get into a romantic or sexual relationship with), with people who are trans (people whose assigned-at-birth gender is not who they are).

The answer is, of course, that "we" don't lump them together; the group as a whole has decided to band together because the persecution and opression they suffer is in many ways shared, and often the kind of person who would persecute one of the groups would persecute all of them. But it's not "anti-trans" or "anti-LGBT" to ask this question.

(Consider "Asian-American", which is more a political/activist construct than anything else, given that "Asian" describes a bunch of different groups, some of which may not have all that much in common culturally or even politically.)

The organization in question may also be anti-trans (or anti-LGBT as a whole), but that's... a separate issue?

But they're not against LGB, just T. So they're anti-T. When every letter in the acronym is literally representing a different group, lumping them together the way you are is dishonest.

LGBT people bundled themselves together, decades ago.

This particular group was formed to combat the notion of LGBT identity. So it isn't unreasonable to class it as anti-LGBT, in addition to also holding more specifically anti-T positions.

that's exactly the kind of divide-and-conquer approach that queer solidarity is a bulwark against though - whether you're gay, straight, bisexual, or trans, we all face a very particular kind of oppression having to do with sex and gender, and our best bet for countering that oppression is to have eachother's backs: if you're coming after trans people you're going to have to get through the rest of us first.

That's not dishonest, that's a strategic show of strength.

I'm not saying there's anything dishonest about LGBT people all banding together to show strength. I'm saying that it's dishonest to say that an LGB person who doesn't want to be lumped in with the T people is "anti-LGBT."

I'm not LGBT, but I do personally know LGB people who don't like the Ts being lumped in with them. They aren't anti-trans by any means, but they see it as a different thing that tends to distract from the LGB and causes more strife. I also know LGB people who share your philosophy and are perfectly happy to have the Ts onboard.

I'm just explaining my POV as an outsider.

In a literal sense, you're right. But the ideas and values that underpins the LGBT movement and many of the people who identify with it are not compatible with accepting just part of that group.

They don't seem to be anti-lgbt even if they disagree with your political beliefs.

They have helped defend some feminists. Again, you can disagree with their defense of those people - but that isn't exactly mustache twirling evil.

Society isn't supposed to be where one political faction throws it's opposers into prison.

The feminist they helped is an anti-trans activist who was posting "No Men In Women's Bathroom" posters. I'm also not sure if she is LGBT. They have also helped an Anti-CRT activist per their "cases" page, which contains a video about "AntiWoke".

This organization has a peculiar pattern, much of which revolves around attacking the Equality Act, which tries to protect people based on:

"Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation"

With that laid bare, I guess their pattern isn't so peculiar, huh.

This isn't "politics", it is simply about suppressing minorities.

I don't think being opposed to CRT or respecting Women's spaces is the same as "suppressing minorities".

This comment causes me anxiety, I'll be reporting it to the authorities.

That was not noteworthy other than it highlighted the civic attitude that leaves police feeling free to arrest for merely perceived speech violations.

You come off as saying the arrest is warranted but in a way so as to suggest you aren't saying so.

No, he isn't saying that at all. There's a difference between saying something is morally reprehensible (OP's comment in my own words) and that an arrest is warranted.

It is obviously warranted

> It is noteworthy

It is NOT noteworthy. The solution to bad speech is MORE speech, not authoritarian crackdowns based on how someone had hurt feelings. Better points of view will prevail.

A system where it’s okay to arrest someone for causing “distress” is one that will 100% be abused.

Just the other day, we saw government tools originally promised to only be used against the Bad Guys (pedophiles, terrorists, and copyright violators) being used to persecute a 17 year old girl who got a miscarriage.

In the long run, bad precedents have a way of inevitably being turned against everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

No, she induced a miscarriage at 28 weeks. Babies born at 28 weeks have over 80% chance of survival, so she murdered her own baby

Whether or not an arrest is warranted is another debate, but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who flies a flag so closely related to the nazi flag to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

Excellently done. I applaud your skill at rebuking all these right-wing free speech assholes. We need not discuss whether this person should have been arrested when we can much more productively discuss the fact that he is a piece of shit. Who cares if a piece of shit gets arrested? The proper fate of such pieces of shit is to suffer. I mean, suffer the proper and just consequences of their own hate. Who would want to live in a society where everyone can just post whatever hateful garbage they want?

It's also interesting to consider, that:

> The Equality Act 2010 says you mustn’t be discriminated against because of your religion or belief.

> A philosophical belief is a non-religious belief and includes things like humanism, secularism and atheism.

> Something can be a philosophical belief if you strongly and genuinely believe in it and it concerns an important aspect of human life and behaviour. The courts have said that the belief in man-made climate change and spiritualism are philosophical beliefs. But a political belief is not a philosophical belief.

0 https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discriminat...

Specific to Northern Ireland:

> It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions.

> However, a political opinion which includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political purposes in Northern Ireland is excluded from protection.

1 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/religious-belief-and-po...

> but the it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image

Well actually No. Its not important, not at all. If it’s not illegal to cross the street, it doesn’t suddenly become illegal to cross the street because you’re crossing to get to a nazi meet up.

This whole “yes we are abusing the laws to oppress people with opinions we disagree with… But just look at how disagreeable they are!!” Is dangerous.

The escalation from "swastika memes" to more substantial hate is not a big stretch either. There's been multiple threats to LGBT events in my local city lately. No tolerance for intolerance.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/planned-drag-night...

Oh, you should really arrest the people making the violent threats - as that is in fact a crime.

Distasteful memes are not.

Hate speech is a crime, in many countries.

If the law is so broad that anything can be interpreted as hate speech, it is bad law.

A swastika is not hate speech?

It may or may not be. Context is important, and I think it's pretty clear that the swastika here is attempting to make the point (right or wrong) that LGBT groups act like Nazis.

LGBT people round up minorities and herd them into death camps?

That’s because United States of America is the only country in the world that understands free speech.

This is one of those situations where, although I think I'm usually pretty adept at spotting sarcasm, I really can't tell if this comment is sarcastic or not.

Top notch sarcasm or stereotypical "America best ever, every other country sucks". I guess it's funny either way.

I don't think it's a joke at all. Americans may be overzealous in claiming to be number one in many things, but when it comes to free speech they are 100 % right.

I’m not even an american.

It’s not. No other country has such an ironclad freedom of speech protections as the US.

If it was that easy to move to the US, I’d be on the next plane to Miami.

There have been attacks at LGB and radfem events, too.

I personally interpreted the original tweet as being against a rather extremist minority within the LGBT community.

It was not in good taste but I think it highlights an actual issue and it's too easy (and perhaps even proves the point) to accuse anyone sharing it or not being overly outraged by it of being 'anti LGBT'. Like JK Rowling being cancelled for saying that women may not feel safe in toilets with men (many women agree), for instance.

So ad hominem attack in its textbook form.

"Let's not discuss a specific action and its implications on the society. Let's instead talk how bad the person is because he retweeted a post that was created by another person that expresses the views that some people decided nobody should dare to express."

No, separation of actions from identities is a cornerstone of a civilized society. Otherwise, we quickly descend into witch burning and lynching by the mob.

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but: Has somebody asked the person who got arrested whether the swastika means something closer to "I think nazis are good", or instead something closer to "I think some people in some political groups who align themselves with the LGBT community share some attributes with nazis"?

There's an odd mindset around this sort of thing in some internet circles, in which for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition. Isn't that part of what people are reacting to when they are outraged when this sort of arrest happens?

> for example a book that contains a fictional evil person is assumed to be the same thing as an evil book, almost by definition

which book specifically are you thinking of here? was this a thing I missed?

I'm not thinking of a specific book, but I am thinking of this kind of thing (but I haven't read this specific article in full): https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/ya-twitters-victims-and-c...

>>it's important to highlight the context of the group who made the image to understand their motivations behind creating the image, and what it implies about people who share the image.

It implies nothing though. Or are you saying before hitting retweet or before passing along a meme that everyone now needs to do hours of research trying to trace back the origin of a meme to determine its source and how that source relates to politics and wokeness? Does that really seem reasonable to you?

Nothing says sincere commitment to freedom of expression quite like organising a campaign to ban policemen from appearing at pride events and force churches to ordinate people whose views they consider to be unrepresentative of the church's teaching...

Also noteworthy that the UK has had "Malicious Communications" laws on the statute book since 1988 and actually jailed people for it, so the position that this is some new level of outrage perpetrated by the Woke Agenda because the person spoken to by police was a homophobe rather than a poppy burner isn't really one in favour of free speech per se...

It’s clearly anti-trans activism, not anti LGBT, which is a distinction that is meaningful, whether or not I find it repugnant.

That your comment conflates the two is everything that worries me about speech policing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com