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

Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 153 posts

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#131

Post by fein »

ethanbond wrote: post #130
fein wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are parodies of songs and national socialism is a set of politics and philosophies - just because you don't like it doesn't make it not political. > they are outright neo-nazi propaganda... Yet again, so what? Are you insinuating that people are being assaulted by a song? > Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous. No, it isn't, and if you're going to claim tha…

Hmm, sure. Perhaps Austria and Germany are a bit culturally traumatized by the horrors they inflicted upon the world under an ideology, and they wish (based on historical data) to prevent such an occurrence again? I don’t feel qualified to say whether this is effective , but it’s pretty obvious why this is characteristically different from “ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.”

> prevent such an occurrence again?

By imprisoning geriatrics and a guy who made some songs people didn't like the messaging of?

> ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.

I don't see the difference at all. These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#132

Post by raxxorraxor »

madrox wrote: post #67
jfax wrote: post #14

I'm reminded of how under in the UK a person was made to do community service after making a tweet.[1] Obviously not as steep of a sentencing, but a prosecution nonetheless. I only point that out because reading these headlines now doesn't make me feel protective of liberal democracy, it only makes me despair of a global trend. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...

Looking at the tweets in question linked from that article [1], many of those are statements of blowing up airports or making death/rape threats. I, for one, appreciate the idea that making death threats online have consequences. Often these are the only signs you get before mentally ill people act on them, and in most cases police can do nothing until an actual crime is committed...usually that crime is murder. Ther…

> usually that crime is murder.

There aren't many blown up airports by people that stated such things on the internet, this is not a rational concern.

I think people in the UK got sentenced for having bad taste too where bad taste is a matter of perspective.

We completely revamped air port security specifically to provide a feeling of safety after 9/11.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#133

Post by raxxorraxor »

balfirevic wrote: post #22
jfax wrote: post #14

I'm reminded of how under in the UK a person was made to do community service after making a tweet.[1] Obviously not as steep of a sentencing, but a prosecution nonetheless. I only point that out because reading these headlines now doesn't make me feel protective of liberal democracy, it only makes me despair of a global trend. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...

In Croatia, people have been fined for writing ACAB (on Twitter or Facebook), as well as "1312". One journalist has been arrested for publishing satirical song deemed to "insult the nation". Many judges favorite pastime is extorting money from newspapers and journalists through the lawsuits on account of causing them "mental distress" with their articles. And police will readily punch the phone out of your hands if y…

Indeed. And contrary to the right of free speech in the US it is just backward, really underlining the old in the old continent. Quite modern legislation of the last century cannot even compete with the significantly older US constitution.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#134

Post by raxxorraxor »

yrgulation wrote: post #70
sva_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even here in Germany, a man was harassed and had his house raided by police for tweeting a pretty insignificant insult directed at a politician[0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g...

Not surprised. In germany its common practice for the police to monitor people based on ethnicity for instance, indiscriminately of wether they committed crime or not. A thing of the past one should think.

Despite heavily restricting speech in two dictatorships in just once century, people recently made the case that Nazis had too much freedom of speech. This is just embarrassing. People say denying the holocaust is offensive. This is pretty offensive too.

On the contrary, it may very well have been this anti-liberal stance that pushed them to an electoral victory. But sure, they just had too many liberties, that was the issue.

And worse, the state still remains a borderline control freak. Very, very little was learned from the mistakes of the past.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#135

Post by raxxorraxor »

siva7 wrote: post #11
jiggawatts wrote: post #4

Any time you read a headline like this, replace the innocuous-sounding non-crime (“tweeting”) with “upsetting people in power.” Suddenly you’ll realise that the same kind of thing happens everywhere in the world. E.g.: Julian Assange, who’s main crime was upsetting people in power . Unless you think it’s a crime worthy of being hounded for over a decade by multiple nations’ security agencies for trying to — and faili…

Not really. Tweeting your opinion is legal, leaking state secrets not so.

If state secrets contain incriminating contents and are of interest to the public, leaking them is ethically mandatory. Very likely legal as well in any free country.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#136

Post by raxxorraxor »

space_fountain wrote: post #98
rndgermandude wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I leaked Saudi state secrets, should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia? Or is that only if I leaked the secrets of a state you consider a "good guy" state?

Yep, and actually I'm ok with that. We don't have to be blind to the fact that Saudi Arabia locked a bunch of people in a hotel until they agreed to give money and control to a dictator. We don't have to forget that they killed a journalist in one of their embassies for the crime of being one of their critics. And it's not like Saudi Arabia, China, or certainly Russia would be very fast to extradite someone to the US…

Ah, so it is just how things work. Strange argument on context of womens liberation in my opinion.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#137

Post by random314 »

zeraynor wrote: post #118
random314 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I don't know of a single instance where US lent support to a faction that would not increase alignment with NATO corporations, post FDR. I am all ears, if there are any counter examples. My tool of choice is Occams razor and it has served me well so far. I, personally, am not aware of a single counter example. FDR had started to deviate by establishing friendly relations with Stalin's Russia. The possibi…

Based on your criteria I would consider the US support for a post-Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt perhaps counter-productive for US interests for the sake of democracy. https://www.france24.com/en/20120715-egypt-clinton-urges-us-... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian... I would also consider the continued humanitarian support of Afghanistan as not aligned with NATO corporate interests, bro…

Funnily enough, Morsi is now dead. And the United states was active against Morsi, irrespective of the public posture. The optics of being seen as reversing the Arab spring was not good, as was supporting Al Qaeda in Syria.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2013/7/10/exclusive-us-ba...

As for humanitarian support, I have already stated with examples of Syria and Palestine that these secondary activities happen- however, they do not change the primary thrust of US foreign policy. Afghanistan is no different. When I say that primary objective of the United states is supporting the goals of NATO corporations it does not mean that secondary goals such as social security, unemployment reduction and Medicare don't exist.

As for Iran, I already stated that Obama moved to normalize relationship with non NATO Iran and Cuba by allowing other countries to trade with them etc.

I also explained how Trump is the only president who went off-script by engaging with Russia, ruining the TPP and also harming French/NATO business interests that were developing in Iran. Your edit refers to actions by Trump.

The previous president to do that was FDR. This led to the 2 term limit on presidency as he 1. Introduced social security 2. Normalized relationships with Russia 3. Raised taxes

There was a plot to assassinate fdr as soon as he was elected. Surprisingly enough, nobody was prosecuted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

"Roosevelt's election was upsetting for many conservative businessmen of the time, as his "campaign promise that the government would provide jobs for all the unemployed had the perverse effect of creating a new wave of unemployment by businessmen frightened by fears of socialism and reckless government spending "

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#138

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

FooHentai wrote: post #82
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how the difference in these legal systems is worth the pedantry.

Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant . Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Naz…

In both cases the relevant law was Section 127 of the Communications Act of the United Kingdom.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#139

Post by moistly »

chitowneats wrote: post #113
moistly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And look where that’s gotten you.

Quoted post unavailable.

Didn’t think I’d have to spell it out, but you’ve got Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and endless funding from the Koch brothers who were literally raised by a Nazi nanny, all abusing “free speech” to purposefully—and successfully!—destroy your nation.

Free speech absolutism or a functional society: you can pick only one, not both.

Re: Saudi Arabia sentenced a woman to 34 years in prison for tweeting

#140

Post by ethanbond »

fein wrote: post #131
ethanbond wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, sure. Perhaps Austria and Germany are a bit culturally traumatized by the horrors they inflicted upon the world under an ideology, and they wish (based on historical data) to prevent such an occurrence again? I don’t feel qualified to say whether this is effective , but it’s pretty obvious why this is characteristically different from “ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.”

> prevent such an occurrence again? By imprisoning geriatrics and a guy who made some songs people didn't like the messaging of? > ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class. I don't see the difference at all. These people are criticizing a sacred cow and the ruling class wants to crush that dissent.

If you're thinking so hard that you can't see the difference between someone resurrecting the ideology responsible in real, actual, recent history for 20-30 million deaths, versus someone who is criticizing a brutal dictator, then you are thinking too hard.

This doesn't need to break down to some formally correct logical statement. Simply look at the facts of each case, the goals of each party involved, the systems each party uses to legitimize its actions, and the resulting effects of each party pursuing their goals.

Edit: Did you delete your very nasty message accusing me and “my ilk” of being “beyond repair?” I guess that language really fits with the whole “defending neo-Nazis” schtick.

Post reply on HN