Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If a tweet declares war, is it treason to take it down?

abe-winter.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–44 of 44 posts

Re: If a tweet declares war, is it treason to take it down?

#41

Post by benj111 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #39
benj111 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. X declares war on Y. Twitter takes it down so Y never sees it. Are they at war?

> X declares war on Y. [...] > Are they at war? Yes. Moreover, it doesn't matter, as no one declares war before initiating hostilities anymore; since aggression has been uniformly understood to be a crime, the only legitimate reason for waging war is is immediate, including imminent, national or collective self-defense (including, in the latter, implementation of UNSC resolutions pertaining to maintenance of peace an…

I was thinking of a World War 2 scenario where the declarers didn't actually start hostilities.

Now in an alternate universe where Germany didn't realise it was at war if it invaded Poland, so it never invaded France. Fast forward X years on, and France wants to sign a peace treaty (because it's embarrassing being in the EU but at war with a fellow member, and makes Schengen complicated), but Germany doesn't see the need because they aren't at war. Can France unilaterally declare peace? Is Germany at war? (I suppose theres a legal and real world answer to this)

I'm reminded of an urban legend, where Berwick on Tweed wasn't included in the peace treaty concluding the Crimean war, therefore still technically at war with Russia [1]. In all the tellings, a second treaty has had to be signed to end the war, which suggests both parties need to agree.

[1] http://www.berwickfriends.org.uk/history/berwicks-war-with-r...

Re: If a tweet declares war, is it treason to take it down?

#42

Post by benj111 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
benj111 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Actually waging war on the US is treasonable without a Congressional declaration" I'm trying to parse this. Waging war on behalf of the US?

No, I this pretty clearly means it is treasonable to participate in war being waged againat the United States (or to provide aid and comfort to those doing so) whether or not Congress has declared war. It is also treasonable to provide aid and comfort to those against whom Congress has declared war. Congressional declaration of war is sufficient, but not necessary, to make an entity an enemy of the United States.

Ok, so it's

"Actually waging war on the US is treasonable"

And the Congress bit is a needless modifier, leading me up the (wrong) garden path.

Re: If a tweet declares war, is it treason to take it down?

#44

Post by manicdee »

t0mbstone wrote: post #29
akersten wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair, "vendetta" is too strong of a word. "Personal bias" is better-suited. It's just hard to read a post calling them "internet vampires" and still assume a neutral author.

But Twitter has objectively proven themselves to be "celebrity vampires" by selectively applying different sets of rules to celebrities than to common people. For example, it is against Twitter's official rules ( https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules ) for a user to use their platform to say hateful or racist things, and they regularly ban people for violating those conditions, but they they re…

It’s especially common for Twitter, upon receiving complaints from a POC about racial harassment, to ban the victim.
Post reply on HN