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

Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#31

Post by aroberge »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #26
sergiotapia wrote: post #6

The same thing happened here in Bolivia. Samuel Doria Medina, tweeted that President Evo Morales had sex with a minor (17 years old) and she was pregnant. The following day the mother of the minor (a political person of power in Evo's cabinet) files for jail time among other things. This was about two months ago and to be honest, media died down on it, and I have no idea what happened to the process. Was she in fact…

17 years old is not a minor. And you don't tweet about other peoples' sexual (or reproductive indeed) lives. If person C tweets about the sexual life of B and A, then C is a bad person. They should not have done it. P. S. I live on another side of the planet.

As is the case where the person you are replying to, where I live, a 17 years old is a minor. You claim to be living on another side of the planet ... then you should restrict to comment about things you know about on "your" side of the planet.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#32

Post by mmishra »

pGrabber wrote: post #21

Unfortunate, but real state of affairs in the so called "India Shining" story! Corruption is ingrained in public and private offices. And my biggest concern is that it's become a way of life and people are indifferent to it.

It is unfortunate but change is difficult too. Countries , like companies , have to be crafted thoughtfully and carefully (Google US) otherwise they end up being mess like ( India Yahoo ). I feel same for both Yahoo and India. They both were amazing but now in a state of mess.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#33

Post by guard-of-terra »

aroberge wrote: post #31
guard-of-terra wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17 years old is not a minor. And you don't tweet about other peoples' sexual (or reproductive indeed) lives. If person C tweets about the sexual life of B and A, then C is a bad person. They should not have done it. P. S. I live on another side of the planet.

As is the case where the person you are replying to, where I live, a 17 years old is a minor. You claim to be living on another side of the planet ... then you should restrict to comment about things you know about on "your" side of the planet.

A 17 years old is not a minor. You can call them "sexually restricted" but biologically and socially they are grown up and capable. Minor is somebody who is still growing. 17 years old is grown up. 17 years old might be already studying in an university thoudsands of kilometers from home. Or they work and earn money. By calling 17 years a minor and trying (rather unsuccessfully) to restrict them sexually you are trying to violate human rights and therefore a bad person.

P. S. I see the downvote rally is going on. Bring in relatives and friends! Suffering for truth is sweet.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#34

Post by curiousDog »

magobarca wrote: post #4

because India is a corrupt mafia run state?

Russia would probably be an example of a corrupt mafia run state. India is just corrupt or rather indian politicians. And at that population & diversity (given the limited resources), that's pretty much inevitable. It's just human greed. Is there a solution? I don't know but education and trying to curb the population would be a start

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#36

Post by bmm6o »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #33
aroberge wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is the case where the person you are replying to, where I live, a 17 years old is a minor. You claim to be living on another side of the planet ... then you should restrict to comment about things you know about on "your" side of the planet.

A 17 years old is not a minor. You can call them "sexually restricted" but biologically and socially they are grown up and capable. Minor is somebody who is still growing. 17 years old is grown up. 17 years old might be already studying in an university thoudsands of kilometers from home. Or they work and earn money. By calling 17 years a minor and trying (rather unsuccessfully) to restrict them sexually you are tryi…

Minor: "a person under the legal age of full responsibility."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minor?s=t

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#37

Post by guard-of-terra »

bmm6o wrote: post #36
guard-of-terra wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 17 years old is not a minor. You can call them "sexually restricted" but biologically and socially they are grown up and capable. Minor is somebody who is still growing. 17 years old is grown up. 17 years old might be already studying in an university thoudsands of kilometers from home. Or they work and earn money. By calling 17 years a minor and trying (rather unsuccessfully) to restrict them sexually you are tryi…

Minor: "a person under the legal age of full responsibility." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/minor?s=t

Then we are all minors because I don't see how we are allowed of full responsibility. For example, we don't seem to be allowed to own and use drugs.

And how does having sex with a person under the legal age of full responsibility (which may not come until like 35 when you're allowed to apply for certain political positions in some jurisdictions) allows a third party to tweet away the details of your sex life? I'm all for the freedom of speech, but anyone who does that is a very very bad person. You might have a right to tweet about other peopes' sex life without their consent (if we aim for absolutely free speech), but using that right marks you a very bad person indeed.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#38

Post by therandomguy »

sudhirj wrote: post #14
sudhirj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrupt, yes. Mafia-run, no. There are limits to the insults we will take.

Come to think of it, implying that some of our politicians were smart enough to be mafia would be highly insulting to the mafia. Some are wannabe mafia, though. They're the ones we try to avoid. The others are corrupt, but often their motives are fairly aligned with public interest. For instance, they take cuts on all infrastructure projects, so our infrastructure tends to improve at a fairly good pace - though obvio…

"so our infrastructure tends to improve at a fairly good pace"... not quiet. The politicians get HUGE kick backs from the contracts. Where does the money come from? By sourcing cheap sub-standard materials. This leads to shit infrastructure with everything crumbling within couple years of construction. I have seen pictures of N. Korea and they seem to have better infrastructure.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#39

Post by oh_sigh »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #26
sergiotapia wrote: post #6

The same thing happened here in Bolivia. Samuel Doria Medina, tweeted that President Evo Morales had sex with a minor (17 years old) and she was pregnant. The following day the mother of the minor (a political person of power in Evo's cabinet) files for jail time among other things. This was about two months ago and to be honest, media died down on it, and I have no idea what happened to the process. Was she in fact…

17 years old is not a minor. And you don't tweet about other peoples' sexual (or reproductive indeed) lives. If person C tweets about the sexual life of B and A, then C is a bad person. They should not have done it. P. S. I live on another side of the planet.

Every society sets different ages for when sexual activity is acceptable. You may not agree that a 17 year old is a minor, but it isn't your decision.

I would recommend you do not go to Bolivia, have sex with a 17 year old, and try to argue that a 17 year old isn't really a minor.

Re: Why was an Indian man held for sending a tweet?

#40

Post by oh_sigh »

stickydink wrote: post #17
shardling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, the story there isn't really anything to do with social media. It's about riot-related crimes being treated more harshly.

But, the rioting there never happened. It only ever got as far as a Facebook event, seen only by their own friends. (And a friend of a friend, who obviously panicked a little)

So it's legal to plan a riot, as long as the riot never materializes?

You aren't allowed to plan a murder, even if you never actually murder someone. It's the same thing.

Post reply on HN