Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfax | Hacker News Reader

I'm reminded of how under in the UK a person was made to do community service after making a tweet.[1] Obviously not as steep of a sentencing, but a prosecution nonetheless. I only point that out because reading these headlines now doesn't make me feel protective of liberal democracy, it only makes me despair of a global trend.

1. https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...

View on HN

Looking at the tweets in question linked from that article [1], many of those are statements of blowing up airports or making death/rape threats. I, for one, appreciate the idea that making death threats online have consequences. Often these are the only signs you get before mentally ill people act on them, and in most cases police can do nothing until an actual crime is committed...usually that crime is murder.

There's a difference between getting arrested for tweeting for social change and for, well, calling for deaths. There's certainly a grey area about "jokes" here, but you haven't been able to joke about "the bomb in your pants" in airport security lines for the entire history of airport security, so it's hardly a new global trend. It's also different when someone with millions of followers "jokes" about something. Before Twitter, this woman would've still been arrested for what she was advocating, and that's what makes her situation awful...not that she got arrested for tweeting.

We should be compassionate when applying the law and continue to figure it out, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

1: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...

Well what I noticed was that the targets of the comments were an airport, soldiers, footballers and politicians. While most of the tweets were dumb, it’s also the case that it’s powerful people/institutions using the law to quash lower class folks.

In the US (still I hope) as none of these are calling for an immediate action against the targets, a non corrupt court here would have to let all of these go.

In other words, the UK law referenced is bunk; to take your analogy, it’s like they kept the bathwater but threw out the baby - over exuberant enforcement will only lead to MORE resentment, not less.

> usually that crime is murder.

There aren't many blown up airports by people that stated such things on the internet, this is not a rational concern.

I think people in the UK got sentenced for having bad taste too where bad taste is a matter of perspective.

We completely revamped air port security specifically to provide a feeling of safety after 9/11.

Britain is famous for convicting a guy who got his dog to do the nazi salute. And they just don't stop, they arrested a tweeter the other day along with a guy who filmed the first arrest.

https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-commu...

BBC government media used to have Monty Python doing satirical nazi salutes on prime time television. Shows how easily standards can change without constitutional protections.

Someone should report this guy to them https://images.thewest.com.au/publication/CD15E5C4C89CE4DA25...

They exiled him to Canada, no?

Kind of how they exiled King Edward VIII to the Bahamas.

> One of the officers says

> “Someone has been caused anxiety based on your social media post. And that is why you’re being arrested.”

I cannot believe I am reading this.

The nazi dog was in Scotland, this is in England. they are different legal jurisdictions.

Edit: England, not Britain.

Solid pedantry attempt, but missed the mark.

Scotland is a part of Britain. Scotland is not part of England nor Wales, but Scotland, England, and Wales are all part of (Great) Britain.

Ah, poor Wales. You'd have to murder your wife to sit on the throne there.

Appreciate the gotcha, nearly as fun to post as pedantry. I only made the same mistake OP did, however.

The actual point still stands. If you're going to take a dig at a legal system, country, or culture, don't try to back up your point with an example from a different one.

Scotland is not England legally or culturally, and the scots will be the first to make that point clear.

Please explain how the difference in these legal systems is worth the pedantry.

Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant.

Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.

In both cases the relevant law was Section 127 of the Communications Act of the United Kingdom.

That is a very fair point and rebuttal, thank you.

Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain.

This speaks to the myth of decentralized <things>. Because the Internet was hailed as a great invention, with its decentralization bringing us to a sort of knowledge sharing and connectedness eutopia. But now, the Internet and associated technologies are the single greatest medium of centralized control ever.

I always point to Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Ever Loving Grace documentary.

> But now, the Internet and associated technologies are the single greatest medium of centralized control ever.

I strongly disagree with this assessment. The internet currently facilitates enormous amounts of black market trading in virtually every country in the world. The internet facilitates the only information exchange that can provide privacy guarantees between parties, again in virtually any part of the world. The internet has facilitated coordinating terrorist attacks against the most well funded military powers in the world alongside facilitating sharing cat memes. You can trade digital goods with extreme convenience regardless of centralized sanctions that may otherwise prohibit such trades.

I think you're mistakenly looking at centralized powers utilizing the internet to further their reach to incorrectly surmise that people have less ability today to act outside of the will of centralized planners, which in my opinion, is undeniably, demonstrably false.

I couldn’t disagree more. The fact that the internet enables certain illicit decentralized activities doesn’t mean that it’s not a net tool towards the benefit / potential benefit of a centralized authority.

I was recently confused when a friend asked me how my vacation was, which was last minute and completely absent from my social media. I told nobody and shared nothing about this trip. Yet the friend I was vacationing with had posted a Story of us out on Snap/Insta, which I didn’t see, thus hundreds of people knew about my vacation with my friend. The internet centralized information through many channels, not only state authority but also cultural patterns and habits that become the new norm.

A man was given a suspended jail sentence in the UK for making a joke video about Grenfell. To (on the whole) great and uncritical applause from the media and general public.

Article for those who might be interest: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/20/man-admits-p....

A 10 week jail sentence for a racist video making fun of a terrible tragedy doesn't bother me as much as locking up political opponents

Ok, I read the article. The defendant did not share the video publicly, he shared it with two whatsapp groups. He was also not the one to make the racist comment in the video. Was his video offensive? Sure. But being offensive should never be a crime.

But the thing we're comparing to is literally advocating for women to be allowed to drive. I categorically reject the notion that we have to ignore the content of the messages when comparing the cases. The slap on the wrist for making fun of victims is bad, but isn't comparable and any reader should know both that it was just a slap on the wrist and that it was for something that almost everyone would agree was wrong.

edit: also the article doesn't mention how large the groups were. There's every possibility one was quite large because you know it went viral

On what planet is 10 weeks imprisonment a slap on the wrist? Both of the rulings we’re comparing are utterly insane but I certainly agree that the Saudi one is far more insane.

In my opinion the size of the groups doesn’t matter when it comes to whether or not it should be a crime. Though I understand it may be a relevant factor as far as the law is concerned.

Does it bother you it was the ONLY jail sentence associated with this enormous disaster? You can kill 70 people, just dont say bad things about them, mkay?

A 10 week jail sentence for a racist video making fun of a terrible tragedy bothers me a whole lot.

In Croatia, people have been fined for writing ACAB (on Twitter or Facebook), as well as "1312". One journalist has been arrested for publishing satirical song deemed to "insult the nation".

Many judges favorite pastime is extorting money from newspapers and journalists through the lawsuits on account of causing them "mental distress" with their articles.

And police will readily punch the phone out of your hands if you try to record them, citing GDPR.

Often times people on HN will proudly proclaim how Europe has a "different view on free speech" - really, you don't have to remind us.

Literally a 30+ year jail sentence vs fines. Like don't get me wrong, that seems bad, but not really on the same level

> but not really on the same level

It's not, of course. It wasn't my intention to portray it at such (which is why I didn't pile this on as a top level comment).

I did think it was interesting to bring up readily available examples that show we're not done with (pretty open) authoritarianism, even in EU countries. I guess it's similar reason why jfax commented about UK tweet jailings.

Fair, sorry for the sort of attacky reply. I think there's an urge sometimes when presented with human rights abuses in other countries to point to hypocrisies in the west, of which there are many in a way that seems like it's just aiming at making people throw up their hand and decide that there's no good guys so we can't complain about anything and I think I reacted to that type of opinion rather than anything you said in particular

Indeed. And contrary to the right of free speech in the US it is just backward, really underlining the old in the old continent. Quite modern legislation of the last century cannot even compete with the significantly older US constitution.

“democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried”

Turns out the white wigs they wear are actually clown wigs.

I guess they're on to tweets now because they've rid the island of scissors, kitchen knives and pointy sticks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com