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

Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 443 posts

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#311

Post by mardifoufs »

nullc wrote: post #286
beaconstudios wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Out of many criticisms of the U.S. that the country deserves, its mostly rigid protection of free speech rights in a formal sense is one good thing, and it hasn't led to a hell of bigotry, or at least no more so than have weaker protections for free speech in other countries. Depends on how you measure it. The US has some pretty notable racial issues, even compared to other Anglosphere countries. I wouldn't put tha…

> even compared to other Anglosphere countries lol. I find it hard to not laugh at that. Having done business in US, UK, and varrious places in Europe, my first exposure to business culture outside of the US left me utterly shocked about the high levels of blatant and unabashed racism that was ubiquitous outside of the US. It often involved racial groups that weren't legible to me as an American but was was particula…

Yeah, honestly it just shows how little americans know about the outside world. That there is even a discourse around racism in the US shows that people care enough about the issue. Outside the anglosphere, it is so normalized and institutionalized that it's not even a controversial issue. And when it is, it would be for issues that are way outside of the normal anglo overton window on racism. For example, it's generally accepted in france that you can't go to university if you wear a headscarf. It's not even a debate anymore really.

Same goes for roma people, you won't ever really get any discussion on the racial dynamics or the socioeconomic circumstances that lead to the higher crime rates etc. It does not matter, the only discussion is around how much discrimination is maybe too much. The discrimination itself isnt even an issue.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#312

Post by Synaesthesia »

paulpauper wrote: post #199

Funny how some people take 'freedom of speech' for granted or universal..nope...that is uniquely an American feature, still, even after centuries. Democracy does not mean free speech.

The US only got freedom of speech in the 60's.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#313

Post by decremental »

Radim wrote: post #289
decremental wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If tomorrow the government commanded that the color blue is now to be called red, that would not be an evolution of language. It would not be language evolving organically as language does over time. It would be change by force outside of the way things change naturally on their own.

> outside of the way things change naturally on their own. "Naturally on their own", you say? It sounds like you consider humans outside of forces of nature, outside of evolution. Are you a theist perhaps? I'm trying to understand your position, because to me humans and human relationships and human societies and human actions seem (obviously) a part of nature. They're complex systems, yes, but there's nothing inorga…

I feel like I'm debating someone who is intentionally acting obtuse. I think you know what I'm saying and understand perfectly well what my position is here. Trying to shoehorn religion (something I'm sure you abhore) into this says a lot about the disingenuous nature of your motivation in this discussion. This would be more fruitful if you would just be candid with your own opinions instead affecting a passive aggressive attitude.

Let's agree to disagree.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#314

Post by autoexec »

TomGullen wrote: post #71
NikolaNovak wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. " Why not,and who gets to make the determination? I'm an atheist, and having so many blasphemy and religion protection laws in liberal democracies misused (or rather, used exactly as they are truly intended) so horribly has really taught me what poorly defined restrictions on speech mean in the real world. As for racist speech, I really truly b…

Racism is wrong and dangerous, and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it. Censoring it might keep the racists to their ugly selves, but that's OK with me.

> and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you actually care about fighting racism, you have to be able to see it. You have to be able to understand it. You have to be able to track it. Driving racist rhetoric underground, making it hard to follow what groups are being targeted or what lies are being told, making it more difficult to identify who is involved in racist groups, what their numbers are, and who is listening to them doesn't help fight racism. Racism exists, and we need to face it. We can't just hide it away so that we can feel better or pretend the problem is solved.

You can't fight an enemy you aren't allowed to see.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#316

Post by Msw242 »

basisword wrote: post #13

I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) a…

Slippery slopes aren't really a type of fallacy. Much in the same way that conspiracies are often real.

Outside of limited cases where speech can be linked to physical harm, it should be legal and unrestricted.

And companies should embrace the spirit of freedom of speech in choosing not to restrict it on their platforms. (Or they could be forced as common carriers)

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#317

Post by beaconstudios »

ciupicri wrote: post #273
beaconstudios wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by racism. Interpersonal racism seems to fly under dogwhistles moreso than outright statements now that it's socially unacceptable (in most places), where e.g. casual racism against Romania people is still pretty common in Europe. Judging from economic outcomes, though, I'd say the US is still pretty racist, even if being individually racist is mostly condemned (though I think it…

There's no such thing as racism against Romanians, since it's not a race, but it could be xenophobia. Or maybe you're making a confusion with Romani (Roma, gypsies) people.

Autocorrect - I meant Romani.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#318

Post by rubyist5eva »

listless wrote: post #240
basisword wrote: post #13

I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) a…

> "You shouldn't be able to tweet racist messages" This seems right on the surface, but the problem is that it's really hard to determine what a racist message is. For instance, if black people want to discuss their frustration with white people in honest language, it might sound pretty racist. But I'm not sure any of us would want to curtail that. FB had this exact problem not too long ago.. https://revealnews.org/a…

> if black people want to discuss their frustration with white people in honest language, it might sound pretty racist

Because it is.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#319

Post by cortesoft »

MadSudaca wrote: post #130
xboxnolifes wrote: post #121

I feel like I must have been corrupted by the internet or something if the tweet in question is considered "grossly offensive". It certainly isn't nice , but 18 months supervision and 150 hours of community service? I don't even know how to put my bafflement into words here.

At first glance it may seem baffling, but if you see it from the “different culture different values” framework, you realize it’s just how people there want their society to conduct itself. It’s no different, from this perspective, to how baffling may seem cultures where burping loudly in the dinner table is not frowned upon, where people really value their personal space or not, and on and on.

It really depends on if you believe the majority can impose anything they want on a minority. Even if a majority of people in the UK want these rules, we can still argue whether a government has the right to enact that will of the people.

Re: Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK

#320

Post by autoexec »

chroma wrote: post #192
basisword wrote: post #13

I’m generally in favour of some limits on speech. I don’t think you should be able to tweet racist messages for example. It’s obviously very complicated and something people are going to argue a lot about. BUT this case has made me change my opinion. Things much worse than this are tweeted every day and this is the one that gets prosecuted. It’s blatantly politically motivated (‘national hero’, British soldier etc) a…

I disagree with restrictions on speech for the following reason: - If you limit what people are allowed to write or say, you are effectively limiting what others are allowed to read or hear. - Censorship means delegating a censor. - That censor would then be able to determine what I am allowed to read or hear. There is nobody I trust besides myself to do that. I definitely don't trust any government body to do that.…

> I disagree with restrictions on speech for the following reason:

I've never once met a true free speech absolutist. We accept restrictions on speech all the time. We restrict companies from outright lying about their products. We (sometimes) hold people accountable for lying under oath. We even compel certain speech by forcing companies to disclose ingredients and allergens. Even for government some material is justifiably classified and shouldn't be publicly shared. I should not be allowed to make direct calls for violence against others, phone in fake bomb threats, or yell "fire" in a theater.

There are good reasons to limit/place restrictions on speech. It's the same with every right we have. There will be instances that call for restriction. It falls on us to make sure that we preserve freedom as much as we can while still enacting sane restrictions.

Laws against racist speech do more harm than good. They hinder our efforts to understand and confront racism and they are so broadly defined that they are easily abused. That doesn't mean other restrictions on speech are't a good idea though.

Post reply on HN