521–530 of 558 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the government abstains from prosecution, maybe the people should abstain from the practice too, then.
So you don’t consider people’s criticisms of Tan free speech? Or does he only get that privilege?
But then, my criticism of the people's criticism of Tan's free speech is also criticized. And then we only get criticism of criticism and no actual productive dialogue. Or so it seems. Looks complicated. Where does it end?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I say to you "die slow", would you read it as me threatening to murder you?
Are you implying that it's not a threat of any kind? Regardless of how it's enacted? I would certainly rather be threatened with a nice day. Especially in this climate, where the tip of a hat causes anonymous people to pile on and send threats via mail, it wouldn't be as simple as brushing it off. The worst part isn't usually the initial threat, it's the piling on afterwards that can last for months and years afterwa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was only quoting Tupac…
And? Was he giving a recital of Tupac's lyrics / reading it out loud, or was it pulled out of that context and aimed at someone specific? I can call your mother a hamster and that your father smelt of elderberries; just because it's a quote from Monty Python doesn't mean it wouldn't be insulting to you.
Alright, that does it. Pistols at dawn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to clarify, in the US, "I will kill you" may or may not be considered a threat. It depends on whether or not it's actionable. If it's a tweet, it's probably not going to be considered actionable. People talk shit all the time, a lot of people in this post need to calm down and stop being so quick to be offended. Should have said it? Probably not. Does that make him a danger to anyone? Not by itself it doesn't.
If he said "I will kill you" it'd be a pretty open threat. I'm sure it'd still be argued a lot in courts on if it's genuine but it'd be an actual argument. Saying "die motherfucker" makes it less obvious. Since the other extreme of "this person should die" is crude, but not a threat (lest Twitter would be shut down overnight). So it'd come down to the judge and how they interpret the phrase to get any headway >People…
https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/elements-of-criminal...
It isn't polite speech that needs to be protected and the tests for whether something is an actual threat or not is well understood, there's no excuse for you not knowing them unless you don't live in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the situation you posit, that sort of action would come from a vote, not a single person's vigilante call for action. That is the difference. While I'd argue for a normal person that posting something like that would just fly under the radar and disappear into the aether of the internet, the same does not apply to someone who heads a large publicly visible company, and who posts publicly on an account associated (…
Politicians call for the death of their opponents all the time. See Lyndsey Graham's recent tweet calling for an attack on Iran.
It's literally illegal to give death threats (not that I think this qualifies as a particularly serious one). But that's the difference between this and your argument with politicians rattling sabres. (Just to make it clear, I don't feel so strongly about the whole situation, but I do think making false equivalences is misleading)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he said "I will kill you" it'd be a pretty open threat. I'm sure it'd still be argued a lot in courts on if it's genuine but it'd be an actual argument. Saying "die motherfucker" makes it less obvious. Since the other extreme of "this person should die" is crude, but not a threat (lest Twitter would be shut down overnight). So it'd come down to the judge and how they interpret the phrase to get any headway >People…
educate yourself https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/elements-of-criminal... It isn't polite speech that needs to be protected and the tests for whether something is an actual threat or not is well understood, there's no excuse for you not knowing them unless you don't live in the US.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm just saying that I can see it being argued based on the phrasing and how far the subjects wanted to escalate this. Whether or not it would be effective or viable is another question.
I'm a little bit aghast at all the comments saying this is normal or no big deal. Maybe it is normal (or at least common), but it shouldn't be. If you believe it's no big deal, I can't agree. I can see this kind of behaviour from adolescents, but adults should understand that words are meaningful and have consequences, and that even if you disagree with someone, they're still a human being who deserves some modicum o…
Reading this article by Rebecca Solnit [0] posted on HN here [1] absolutely helped me make sense of the Garry Tan story, and what is going on in Californian politics. It's well worth reading, but is a long and initially tedious article bemoaning the passing of a gentler, humane culture. Then about halfway through it grew some balls and teeth, and frankly I found it shocking. I had no idea California was this degenera…
Pure clout chasing by a clueless white feminist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this was out-of-hours There's no out-of-hours for CEO. He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. (It's not like he used some anonymous account to troll on some subreddit) > Walmart cashiers shouldn't be sacked for immaturity and poor judgement in their personal lives if their work is life is up to scratch. I don't know if they should, but they definitely are…
> There's no out-of-hours for CEO. Unless his contract specifically says that, bull. If his contract foes specifically say that, then I doubt it is legally enforceable anyway. > He was using is official Twitter account to make a public statement, that's a work-related mistake. If he used an official work account, then yes that paints a different picture and is a more clear-cut case of abusing resources and directly b…
"It was after work hours" isn't an excuse.
You'd never guess that this was a Tupac quote by the media coverage and wave after wave of forced outrage. The whole thing is so embarassing.
It's also strange because I've seen Tupac Shakur glamorized in popular culture (for example, hagiographic discussions about him on NPR). But Shakur was rapping about killing people, while those people were being targeted and killed by associates of his, and he himself shot people. A 6 year old was even shot in the head and killed with his gun in one of the fights he got into (he claimed he dropped the gun and someone…
No one cares when the village idiot threatens to blow up China but when the President does it suddenly it's a problem? /s