Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by blibble | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

blibble

I am not a fan of the RIP Act (and there's plenty more badness in there)

but playing devil's advocate, without this specific offence the disclosure sections would be completely ineffectual

(remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US)

View on HN

> remember the UK also allows adverse inferences to be made from silence, it is not the US

Even in the US, the law has changed rather drastically[0]:

“The only way to prevent the government from introducing evidence of the suspect's silence at trial is to explicitly invoke (assert) the right to say nothing. In other words, without being warned by the police or advised by a lawyer, and without even the benefit of the familiar Miranda warnings (which might trigger an ‘I want to invoke my right to be silent!’), the interviewee must apparently say words to the effect of, ‘I invoke my privilege against self-incrimination.’”

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...

If you can't remain silent then what are you supposed to do to not accidentally incriminate yourself?

You say nothing about the alleged crime and instead ask for an attorney.

Remember this important advice—shut the fuck up. https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o

That video is about US law. The above comment says shutting the fuck up can be used as a negative inference against you in court.

Not if you get a lawyer, because as soon as your lawyer shows up, they say "My client invokes his/her right to remain silent."

What right to remain silent are you referring to? Can you link it?

This is one of the reasons why other countries outside the US aren't as free as the US, even though the US is a complete mess too in different ways. Freedom of both speech and silence are not really respected in law anywhere outside the US to the extent that they are in the US.

The US has guilty pleas, plea bargaining and entrapment. Next to that the right to avoid self-incrimination, which also exists in a lot of Western country, feels like a footnote.

The US laws against self-incriminating aren't unique, and many countries go much further. In Norway, you can't be convicted for lying to police and court at all, if it concerns accusations against you or your closest ones (I think that means your spouse and kids/parents in practice), or if it would cause considerable loss of social reputation or welfare of other kinds.

Define 'many countries'.

Is it really important? I gave an example.

Many many countries have rules against drawing adverse inferences from silence, including event Scotland, which is part of the UK.

Scotland really should leave the UK, and then rejoin the EU. They'd be better off.

They also have apecific devolved laws that you can be arrested for illegal speech in your own home and your children can be interrogated about it.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/29/sending-the-thought...

Yes, the Scottish Hate Crime bill. And as expected, they are trying to expand it to cover misogyny. So someone's going to end up serving time for a silly joke they made in a pub.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scots-give-backing-to-mak...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/11/why-misogyny-must-n...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/16/dont-make-misogyny-...

Scotland's problem is that mentioning a "protected characteristic" is enough to get you arrested if someone feels upset. The problem isn't the intent of the law but the incredibly low bar for injury and lack of sanctions for false and unreasonable reports letting the law itself be used for harassment.

I think I should be able to tell a joke "Two catholics and a jew ..." as long as it's not a veiled way to call for harm to anyone, and I don't think a joke about the sexes in a similar vein should be a problem.

But, if you physically attack a catholic because they're a catholic, or a woman because she's a woman, then that is a hate crime - where you're just looking for someone of a class you don't like to inflict punishment on. A sentencing modifier doesn't seem like a bad idea.

I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment.

> I'm not going to get upset if sexist jerks get a little readjustment.

If we break down what you're saying, you're saying it's acceptable for the government to punish and "readjust" (euphemism for re-educate?) someone for mere speech, including /in the "privacy" of their own home/?

Attitudes like this are unfortunately prevalent in Europe, or these types of laws wouldn't pass. I reiterate my earlier comment, that only the US has any real protection for freedom of speech.

It's not just the US: Japan has freedom of speech too, encoded into its constitution. Arguably, speech is more free here than in the US. Many other things are much more free too, such as being able to drink beer outside, or being able to build what you want on your own land without NIMBYs shutting you down. The only big "freedom" we don't have is being able to carry guns around, but I don't miss that at all.

Do I need to repeat myself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com