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

The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

europeancorrespondent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 377 posts

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#341

Post by gspr »

darthwalsh wrote: post #339
gspr wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't trespassing, they were invited! Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing . Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"?

Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"? English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.

> Because it's a common phrase?

I know it's a common phrase (albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits). I'm asking how it came to be that way when it seemingly makes no sense.

> Same as "get carded"?

No, because "being carded" (if I understand correctly) is something that does in fact happen to you. In trespassing, you are the one doing the trespassing (to something/someone else). That's why I find it so weird that Americans turn the subject into object in the sentence.

> English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning

Sure. But taking a perfectly fine sentence and turning the subject into an object (when the physical reality is unchanged) seems strange, and warrants curiosity.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#342

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #138
aa-jv wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I got the impression that free speech in the US is limited to right to annoy people and harass politicians from distance. That's a pretty trite way of looking at it. You could see for example how important free speech was to the US' civil rights movement in making sure that people were able to organize to challenge the status quo. >.. if it was in US they could have been removed and have their free speech in a desig…

US civil rights movement? Seriously? Different times different people. In the latest free speech crusade a rich guy just changed the kind of speech is allowed on his platform. Online speech is heavily restricted on US platforms, as accounts are shadow banned/rate limited/deleted all the time. What freedom of speech examples do you have that involve living people? Every single one freedom of speech fighter are fascist…

>US civil rights movement? Seriously? Different times different people.

Within living memory for some of us. So not that different really.

>What freedom of speech examples do you have that involve living people?

Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Virginia Guiffre. Medea Benjamin.

You may argue that these are individuals whose speech was limited - and it was - but they have been protected nevertheless by the US' free speech laws, or they wouldn't have made as big a fuss as they have in the first place.

>Every single one freedom of speech fighter are fascist who demand some other speech be suppressed and theirs amplified.

This is a gross generalization.

>I don't know why you believe that you can't inform people about the genocide of Gaza in Europe, in fact Europeans are significantly more informed on this and having flotillas and what not.

Just try to show people the situation in Gaza, on the streets of Vienna, and see how far you get before the police turn up to suppress your right to discuss the atrocities in public.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#343

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #192
complianceowll wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not going to give reliable sources and at least point to a couple specific examples, then your comment means nothing. "in fact Europeans are significantly more informed on this", "US free speech seems to be performative". And then there's the, "Are you casting a spell?". You really think you did something there lol. Sources. Examples. Otherwise, you're just someone who can string together complete sentences…

Europeans are able to talk whatever they like about Gaza, WTF? Go Google Greta Thunberg, go research for the Gaza flotillas, go find the polls on the issue if you want sources. What you can't do is to demand killing of the Jewish people and I like it stay like that. That's significantly more freedom than US where you can loose your career, government funding, you can get deported or visa denied etc. if you talk about…

>Europeans are able to talk whatever they like about Gaza, WTF?

I see you're not paying much attention to the streets of Berlin.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#344

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #200
complianceowll wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this in all seriousness: are you that ideologically brainwashed that you think Americans can't talk about Gaza whenever we like? Haha. Bud, stop living vicariously through headlines, touch grass, and understand that the headlines your wonderful algorithm is feeding is not real life....."WTF?" Your last paragraph is a bit incoherent, so I don't know exactly how to respond, but no, I am not demanding the killing…

Of course they can talk about Gaza, its just that they may face the wrath of the US government in form of funding cuts like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/03/trump-admini... TBF USA is very restrictive on speech, just less direct about it. All platforms are American and we can see that speech is strictly restricted through indirect means. Even here, I had my account rate limited so many times on p…

What you don't seem to be able to differentiate, not unusual for a Euro-centric view, is that you can indeed talk about whatever you want in public - but the platforms you despise are not public - they are privately owned and operated platforms which provide a degree of public discourse.

I can stand outside on the street corner in any street in LA with a sign in my hands that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS" any time of day .. but if you try to do that in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, you will get a visit and told to move along.

I say this on the basis of direct personal experience in all cases. It is far, far harder to protest the Gaza genocide than it should be - in both the US and Europe, to be frank - but in the US I at least have the courts to resort to if someone comes and smashes my signs.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#345

Post by khriss »

sequoia wrote: post #323
khriss wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question worth asking is why are people obsessed with demonizing the AIPAC in particular and singling it out as the one or primary 'evil lobbying group' Is your assertion that no one is allowed to criticize AIPAC unless they can 'prove' to you that others who spend more than them are not somehow worse?

No, I'm saying people obsessed with AIPAC to the exclusion of all other lobbying groups are not motivated primarily by an objection to lobbying. I'm also saying the narrative that "AIPAC controls the gov't via lobbying" which many people believe is incoherent because Coinbase must control the gov't even more by this thinking. If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.

> If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.

I think a simpler explanation might be just that there is a lot of attention being paid to why the US seems beholden to Israel to the extent that it would be willing to risk it's relationship with other allies that provide far more in return.

Exhibit A is the Iran war where the US essentially abandoned it's middle east and far east allies (to the extent to moving interceptors from Korea and Japan) to defend Israel. Other regional allies were largely left to fend for themselves.

Seeing all this, people are legitimately asking, what exactly does the US get in return for the enormous support, both direct and indirect that it provides to Israel. Given it's role, naturally AIPAC is going to be central to these conversations.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#346

Post by mrtksn »

aa-jv wrote: post #344
mrtksn wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they can talk about Gaza, its just that they may face the wrath of the US government in form of funding cuts like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/03/trump-admini... TBF USA is very restrictive on speech, just less direct about it. All platforms are American and we can see that speech is strictly restricted through indirect means. Even here, I had my account rate limited so many times on p…

What you don't seem to be able to differentiate, not unusual for a Euro-centric view, is that you can indeed talk about whatever you want in public - but the platforms you despise are not public - they are privately owned and operated platforms which provide a degree of public discourse. I can stand outside on the street corner in any street in LA with a sign in my hands that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS" any time of…

That's my point, US bans free speech through property ownership. Just because you banned speech through property ownership rights doesn't mean you have not banned it. Free speech is non-existent on US platforms and in US it is tucked away so it is impotent against the current ruling class.

In Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam you won't be visited by the police for a sign that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS", you will be visited for one that says something like "Finish the work Hitler started" or "Burn the Mosques" and depending on the context nothing will happen or you may get fine or jail sentence.

In US you will have much more trouble for your undesired speech than in Europe, just more indirectly.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#347

Post by theshrike79 »

khriss wrote: post #345
sequoia wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying people obsessed with AIPAC to the exclusion of all other lobbying groups are not motivated primarily by an objection to lobbying. I'm also saying the narrative that "AIPAC controls the gov't via lobbying" which many people believe is incoherent because Coinbase must control the gov't even more by this thinking. If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.

> If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics. I think a simpler explanation might be just that there is a lot of attention being paid to why the US seems beholden to Israel to the extent that it would be willing to risk it's relationship with other allies that provide far more in return. Exhibit A is the Iran war where the US essentially abandoned it's middle east and far east al…

And specifically agreeing to a war, which every single president before has said "fuck no" because they understood the wider ramifications.

Fun fact: Not a single Kia vehicle sold in Finland has had a tow hook in it for 6 months - they're ALL stuck in Hormuz.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#348

Post by mrtksn »

aa-jv wrote: post #342
mrtksn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US civil rights movement? Seriously? Different times different people. In the latest free speech crusade a rich guy just changed the kind of speech is allowed on his platform. Online speech is heavily restricted on US platforms, as accounts are shadow banned/rate limited/deleted all the time. What freedom of speech examples do you have that involve living people? Every single one freedom of speech fighter are fascist…

>US civil rights movement? Seriously? Different times different people. Within living memory for some of us. So not that different really. >What freedom of speech examples do you have that involve living people? Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Virginia Guiffre. Medea Benjamin. You may argue that these are individuals whose speech was limited - and it was - but they have been protected nevertheless by the US' free spe…

> Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Virginia Guiffre. Medea Benjamin.

Your free speech examples are telling enough. You should check out what happened to them.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#349

Post by bentley »

gspr wrote: post #341
darthwalsh wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"? English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning.

> Because it's a common phrase? I know it's a common phrase (albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits). I'm asking how it came to be that way when it seemingly makes no sense. > Same as "get carded"? No, because "being carded" (if I understand correctly) is something that does in fact happen to you . In trespassing, you are the one doing the trespassing (to something/someone else). That's why…

Trespassing (intransitive) is different from trespassing someone (transitive). It’s not unusual for a verb to mean something different when used transitively versus when used intransitively. To “trespass” someone (transitive) means to ban that someone from a property. Wiktionary provides examples of “trespass” used in this sense as early as 1946.

> albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits

According to this lexicography blog post, datasets reveal the transitive definition to be most common in New Zealand. https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...

Here are some examples of it being used on a NZ website: https://www.police.govt.nz/use-105/trespass

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#350

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #346
aa-jv wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you don't seem to be able to differentiate, not unusual for a Euro-centric view, is that you can indeed talk about whatever you want in public - but the platforms you despise are not public - they are privately owned and operated platforms which provide a degree of public discourse. I can stand outside on the street corner in any street in LA with a sign in my hands that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS" any time of…

That's my point, US bans free speech through property ownership. Just because you banned speech through property ownership rights doesn't mean you have not banned it. Free speech is non-existent on US platforms and in US it is tucked away so it is impotent against the current ruling class. In Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam you won't be visited by the police for a sign that says "JAIL OUR WAR CRIMINALS", you will be visit…

> Just because you banned speech through property ownership rights doesn't mean you have not banned it. Free speech is non-existent on US platforms and in US it is tucked away so it is impotent against the current ruling class.

No. You still have courts protecting your rights and if indeed there is suppression, the courts will defend you. The US Constitution is still a thing. There is no such recourse in Europe.

BTW, I concur with your cynicism, but the situation in Europe is far more dire - especially if you contrast the French vs. German vs. Dutch vs. Austrian results, which are in quite distinct conflict with the ideal we both wish for.

Post reply on HN