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

Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#141

Post by zdragnar »

TeeMassive wrote: post #119
koolba wrote: post #22

Between Facebook banning any support, President Biden labeling him a white supremacist, and the Democrat head of the judiciary committee Rep. Jerry Nadler suggesting a unanimous jury verdict was a “miscarriage of justice” which needs to be investigated, Rittenhouse is going to a busy man.

Most likely not. As was pointed out by a lot of lawyers who followed the case (that I watched on YouTube), defamation lawsuits after a criminal prosecution are very hard to pursue. Also public officials enjoy anti-diffamation protections generally, especially the president and member of congress and members of the senate.

At the very least, Biden was not an elected official when he made his first remark, merely running for office I think. Several highly public figures have also made comments after the trial, continuing to call him a murderer (and white supremacist) even though he was found not guilty.

I am fairly certain that he isn't considered a public figure, aside from the trial itself, so the bar for libel and slander is much lower than if he were a celebrity.

Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements; I am curious as to the extent that the situations are similar or different.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#143

Post by GhettoComputers »

jacquesm wrote: post #130
esyir wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Said dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable. Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter…

I totally agree with that. But nobody in their right mind feels that defending a bunch of cars is worth human lives.

Property rights of any civilized country disagrees.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#144

Post by jacquesm »

urda wrote: post #140
jacquesm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one but feel free to limit your view to those two options.

The only false dichotomy here I see is someone who has failed to understand human history, is arguing in bad faith to disarm them, so ergo the only conclusions we can come to is those types of characters wish to bring harm to others. Just because you disagree with individuals having the right to self-destiny and self-protection, which is evident from your comments that you think nobody should have any right to self d…

> Authoritarians can try and come and take it, but be ready for a fight.

Glad we got that sorted out at least.

This is really just too dumb. Enjoy your shiny toys.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#145

Post by HNTA_1 »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #111
siva7 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component[0]. With someone like Rittenhouse, who has become a darling of the white supremacy movement, the trial is part of an ongoing culture war. And culture warriors are going to do what they always do. [0] See, for example, the use of jury nullification after the US Civil War.

>The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component.

Luckily that wasn't the case here so your comment is immaterial, a straw man.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#146

Post by Rebelgecko »

dreyfan wrote: post #69
urda wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith. BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.

So, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?

Yeah. That actually happened recently in Minneapolis, a story that got amazingly little media coverage. Cops in an unmarked van were driving around shooting rubber bullets and people. Dude things they're trying to kill him, so he shoots back. After he realizes theyre cops, he drops his gun and the officers beat the shit out of him. Prosecutors tried to get him to plea down, but he fought the case and was declared not guilty.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#147

Post by jaybrendansmith »

Nursie wrote: post #132
monkeybutton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.

I am european, but no longer living in Europe (or America) and I can't help but agree. Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then. But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part…

Indeed. My point of view is as a parent of a 16-year old myself. Kyle's parent needs to be locked up here. She's the guilty party, as the supposed guardian of this child. Kyle, defending himself in that bizarro situation, and given current law in that state, was innocent. But there's no world in which a parent should allow that situation to EVER occur. If we dropped a bunch of armed teenagers in the middle of a riot, we should expect mayhem and death, no matter what their individual politics are. We have a serious problem in this country and it isn't Kyle Rittenhouse.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#148

Post by Rebelgecko »

hasdf wrote: post #137
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component[0]. With someone like Rittenhouse, who has become a darling of the white supremacy movement, the trial is part of an ongoing culture war. And culture warriors are going to do what they always do. [0] See, for example, the use of jury nullification after the US Civil War.

If a hispanic guy being aquitted for defending himself from three white attackers is your best example of white supremacy in action and your reference is from the civil war - maybe take a deep breath and realize the country isn't doing as bad as your peers at facebook claim

Don't forget that one of the attackers had been screaming racial slurs all night...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#149

Post by trhway »

baryphonic wrote: post #8
rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.

my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#150

Post by londgine »

Nursie wrote: post #78
School-Cotton wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German definition of self-defense (“Notwehr”) sounds quite comprehensive to me: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany? Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder .

In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light. Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.

In the UK I assume that taking a gun anywhere would be illegal. So let's use a different analogy. If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it? If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?
Post reply on HN