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

351–360 of 377 posts

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#351

Post by bentley »

efreak wrote: post #340
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.

Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. It does not happen to you, rather it's an action you perform. Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. This…

> Tresspass is not a reflexive verb.

Correct. But it is, sometimes, a transitive verb. One can trespass (go somewhere one is not allowed), and one can be trespassed (be banned from a property). One can even be trespassed against, which has a different meaning altogether (to be wronged by someone else).

I think you and the other commenters are confused by the usage of “trespassing someone” because it’s not an everyday usage of the term. “Trespassing someone” is essentially shorthand for “formally banning someone.” Being formally banned from someplace (and notified of it) has special legal significance: it’s basically what determines whether you get kicked out (in the case of mere trespassing) versus getting arrested (criminal trespass). That’s why this phrasing is especially common among cops and other legal personnel.

> Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them.

It’s not like that at all. The difference between “she trespassed” and “he trespassed her” is not the same as the difference between “the vase broke” and “she broke the vase,” even though both are examples of intransitive/transitive uses of a verb. Humans discussing trespassing in a legal context found it convenient for “trespass” to gain a new meaning when used transitively. This usage has now been around for decades so it’s not particularly new anymore, but it’s still uncommon because most people don’t have a need to talk about trespassing in a legal context, and notice of trespass in particular.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#352

Post by jampekka »

loeg wrote: post #228
jampekka wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 11: Freedom of expression and information 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Is this the right of freedom of expression? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g...

No, and the raid was deemed illegal by a judge and the case was dropped.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#353

Post by surgical_fire »

jojobas wrote: post #336
surgical_fire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it qualifies you to judge the political spectrum in the UK as much as you think it does.

You realize it's a global publication with localized editions right?

Yes, I do.

Just neing born in USSR still gives no qualifications to qualify the Guardian within the political spectrum within the UK

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#354

Post by golem14 »

mcherm wrote: post #218
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #173

"The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting" Or reworded: "Belgian police stop our reporting simply because some foreign ambassador asked for it"

Yes, BUT... If, indeed, the park was rented out for a private affair and the person managing that affair asked that someone be removed from the property, then like any case of trespass, it is within the purview of the police to remove that person. It doesn't make the US look good, but I don't think it reflects poorly on the behavior of the Belgian police.

It probably matters if the park, or the rented sub-venue is a public place or not.

Local laws also matter.

In the US, getting someone removed from a public event without or with fabricated cause is likely to cause problems down the road, as the removed people might be likely to win lawsuits.

Belgium has probably - like the rest of the EUb - far weaker freedom of speech protections,

But IANAL, and just a second rate, third hand armchair commentator.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#355

Post by mrtksn »

aa-jv wrote: post #350
mrtksn wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are court in Turkey to protect you too, you stay anywhere from 30 days to 8 months in prison and then the court says you exercised your free speech rights. Similar stuff in US, people in control destroy your life and career then you are deemed actually innocent sorry for the trouble.

That's not free speech, just because eventually you might be acknowledged that you have right to say something doesn't at all mean that you can do it.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#356

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #348
aa-jv wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Their speech was not actually suppressed, or else we wouldn't be talking about them. In fact their speech was protected by the courts, as intended. That the US Military/Industrial Intelligence Complex nevertheless violated their human rights extra-judiciously is another thing, and I concur with the cynicism over the whole 'phony human rights' stance of the US, especially given its recent overt support for actual genocide.

But in our circle, members of these countries not currently being bombed into oblivion - in contrast, look at the "Witness J .. Witness K .. Witness L .." situation in Australia's secret star court ..

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#357

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #355
aa-jv wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There are court in Turkey to protect you too, you stay anywhere from 30 days to 8 months in prison and then the court says you exercised your free speech rights. Similar stuff in US, people in control destroy your life and career then you are deemed actually innocent sorry for the trouble. That's not free speech, just because eventually you might be acknowledged that you have right to say something doesn't at all mea…

The price of freedom is constant alertness and constant willingness to fight the state.

>That's not free speech, just because eventually you might be acknowledged that you have right to say something doesn't at all mean that you can do it.

Yes it is, because once the speech is made, it is free to be propagated. That fascist elements use that free speech to attack you is one thing - and indeed, a government which does not protect its citizens' free speech in favour of other entities, is a repressive one.

But, that is the price of freedom - fight back with whatever tools the state gives you! The USA does, in fact, have tools for its citizens to protect free speech and there are an infinity of examples.

However, throughout history, it is proven: you lose a right once you stop exercising it.

So your totalitarian-defeatism is actually manifesting the thing you're complaining about, yo.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#358

Post by gspr »

bentley wrote: post #349
gspr wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Acc…

Very interesting! This one finally answers my question!

In summary:

(1) It's not an American thing at all. I was wrong.

(2) It's not new. I was wrong.

(3) It has its roots in authorities charging or threatening to charge someone with the act of trespassing. I learned something today :-)

TLDR: "I was trespassed" means "I was charged with the crime of trespassing" (or "threatened with being charged with the crime of tresapssing").

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#359

Post by vanviegen »

szmarczak wrote: post #301
vanviegen wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are meaningfully misquoting here ("doing their job" not "following orders", which has a different ring to it, at least for me). Also, apparently they do have brains capable of thinking because: "Eventually, they accepted that we were journalists and that they disagreed with detaining us."

Ah yes. Let me detain you for 8 hours for doing what you're legally allowed to do. Sorry for my mistake, it's all paid by the taxpayers anyway.

Apparently they were given information by the US embassy that these people were an "active thread". Perhaps they could have figured out that this was bullshit sooner, but I don't think it's the police who are at fault here.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#360

Post by iso1631 »

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #270
iso1631 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many blogs will omit key facts. For example you could write "I was booted out for asking a question" when in actual fact you'd broken in with some wire cutters and then proceeded to pour champagne over all the soft furnishings. A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera. So it's alway…

There is literally a video linked in the source. How about you read the article next time.

"I believe every voxpop nonsense on youtube as long as it agrees with my original prejudices"
Post reply on HN