Hacker News Reader

Comment by Havoc | Hacker News Reader

>They are being arrested for being rude about it.

Which is substantially worse.

Rudeness is so subjective and context sensitive that it really shouldn't form the basis for arrests

As an American, it is hard for me to properly grasp the fact that the UK almost seems closer to Saudi Arabia than the US in this regard.

It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.

> It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.

Hmmmm... /s?

> Hmmmm... /s?

Okay, fair point – I missed the fact that SA is also currently a somewhat key US ally.

But you know what I mean, hopefully. The UK has typically been close enough socially and politically that the term "Special Relationship" has its own Wikipedia page [1].

----------------------------------------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship

Saudi royalty killed a US journalist, violating much more clear-cut free speech principles than this (still bad) state-enforced decorum stuff.

And, you know, the fact your country does do the "jail for opinions" thing too

The US had a revolution from King George III and created a Constitution with 10 Amendments in order to guard against this exact type of behaviour from the government. Discussion on the subject of the people's rights independent of their government isn't widely held today. Maybe that should change.

Yeah, nothing like being arrested _and sentenced to four years in prison_ for talking to a cop while being black, in the land of the free, where this would NEVER happen because of some often-invoked 1st amendment.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...

It was not my intention to say, for instance, that the US is not deeply racist; which is central to the case you quoted. It's likely far more so than the UK.

But the principle of freedom of speech seems generally more accepted, which is why Brittany Martin's case would be recognized by most Americans here for the racist outrage that it is. On the other hand, you have UK people elsewhere in the thread shrugging "yeah, that's a law" [1]), which is what was surprising to me.

----------------------------------------

[1] An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32817744

But it very clearly is not. Quite the opposite is upheld by a court.

Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.

I'm kinda puzzled. I know the US is wide and there's many pockets of everything, but in so many ways the US seems more religious and actively putting it into laws than the UK.

Digging far away, only the US tried to ban alcohol consumption, an angle only islamic countries are also interested in as far as I know. Looking back only a few weeks ago, abortion protection has been abolished nation wide. To only take super salient points.

The US does have wide protections for really really objectionable speech still. See snyder v phelps

The US banned alcohol because at the time we consumed an absolutely HUGE amount and it was causing all kinds of social ills like wife-beating and child neglect.

I thought Iceland also had a prohibition on alcohol. Beer was still prohibited until 1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Iceland

That's part of why the USA got created in the first place. Some people were discriminated against and/or locked in the Tower of London for inconveniencing the King or the establishment. Some of these people moved over and colonized the New World and achieved independence from the British Empire. That's also part of why the UK are your closest allies. Cultural heritage.

This is the UK. You get arrested for taking a plastic knife outside or making mean tweets.

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

Or indeed burning a model of the Grenfell Tower at a bonfire party https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/grenfell-bon...

72 people died in the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Why would you do anything apart from express sympathy to the families of the lost?

Why did you post that comment?

It was a terrible tragedy, but it’s patently absurd that we should give someone a jail sentence for making a joke about it.

(The jail sentence was suspended, but that’s hardly the point. Any criminal conviction, even a fine, carries the ultimate threat of jail, or, if you resist arrest, even death — all this, for a joke).

Are you sure you condone joking about the deaths of people in Grenfell Tower?

I've lived on these shores (South Somerset) for 52 years now and I have made the most awful jokes about some things as anyone probably has here. However, there is a point beyond which I won't go - causing deliberate hurt.

I don't know about the particular case that you refer to or actually skirt around - citation needed please.

A joke does not cause hurt beyond a slight nick with a possible small amount of blood loss. Beyond that it is not a joke and is an insult.

I don't condone the actions, but a jail sentence is utterly absurd and is, frankly, very unsettling. Why should insulting people be a jailable offense? There wouldn't be a stand up comedian left walking free if we consistently enforced this.

And the only person arrested over it had nothing to do with the deaths.

Funny how that works.

> Why would you do anything apart from express sympathy to the families of the lost?

specifically, why would we bring to account those responsible for the actual fire anytime soon? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/21/as-the-grenf...

It may not be good that people are being arrested for rudeness, but it is definitely better than them being arrested for their political views.

How do toy know that's not the real reason and this isn't the excuse?

Is someone who rudely suggests support for the monarchy going to be arrested? I suspect not.

If a naked man started playing “god save the king” on a vuvuzela? Yes, I think he would be.

I'm totally aware of the whole slimy tactic of using "politeness" as a way to backdoor censorship. I'm not down with that.

I'm just saying that it's not worse than direct censorship.

It's likely for "disturbing the peace" which is a little more cut-and-dry than rudeness. So many weird people on both sides of this event, though. I don't care about the queen but props to you if you do. Let's just not make it a thing more than it needs to be.

Isn't the boundary of "more than it needs to be" precisely the source of the disagreement?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com