London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism” • Hacker News Board

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#111

Post by prutschman » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:47 PM UTC

ddinh wrote: post #78

dogweather wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where, specifically, is the quoted text?

It's in the section defining cultural racism: Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as oppo…

The issue they raise is not that future time orientation or individualism are per-se racist, but rather that the "attribut[ion] of value and normality" to those positions, treating other views as "different, less than, or render[ing] them invisible," constitutes what they are referring to as cultural racism.

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#112

Post by dnautics » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:47 PM UTC

gngeal wrote: post #108

corresation wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think expecting basic good judgment of those in law school is 'scary'. Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada, and while you could say that it was but a response, such a tweet is almost certainly in violation of several new anti-'cyber' bullying restrictions.

hateful speech is not protected in Canada How do they prove that a speech is hateful instead of merely being ordinarily contemptuous?

they don't.

speech is not protected in Canada

Is that better?

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#113

Post by Zuider » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

AimHere wrote: post #70

mezmor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has pretty strict libel laws. I wouldn't be surprised if approaching Glasgow U falls under that category.

Defaming a third party by telephone would more likely be slander than libel, but it's certainly not clear that what went on here would be defamation at all. A defamatory statement must be a false factual allegation. As long as what the headmaster claimed was true, he should be safe from libel or slander lawsuits - saying "I don't like this guy's politics and you shouldn't take him on as a student." is a fair expressi…

>...saying "I don't like this guy's politics and you shouldn't take him on as a student." is a fair expression of opinion...

Mr. Szemalikowski appears to be claiming that he considered the student, Kinnan Zaloom, to be a potential terrorist:

>He said he had 'major concerns and was duty bound under legal acts for the prevention of violent extremism' and that he was 'erring on the side of caution' in taking action.

>'It is fairly worrying stuff,' he added.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414197/A-level-stud...

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#114

Post by corresation » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

gngeal wrote: post #108

corresation wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think expecting basic good judgment of those in law school is 'scary'. Further it is worth mentioning that hateful speech is not protected in Canada, and while you could say that it was but a response, such a tweet is almost certainly in violation of several new anti-'cyber' bullying restrictions.

hateful speech is not protected in Canada How do they prove that a speech is hateful instead of merely being ordinarily contemptuous?

Just talking abstractly (again, the only reason I mentioned that is that saying "free speech!" is a non-starter when you're calling someone a bitch -- even if unnamed, if any other party could identify who you mean, it isn't anonymous -- and bringing disrepute upon an institution), but Canadian rights are generally based upon the idea that your rights end where my nose begins, and your right to free speech ends when you intrude on the rights of others not to be harassed, disparaged, etc. Rights go both ways, and there is a balance to be found somewhere in the middle.

Westboro is a hate group, by Canadian law. Their hateful protests are actionable.

We have a new crop of anti-bullying laws -- particularly focused on the online world -- because the speaker can't fallback on the notion that their speech is protected, because it isn't.

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#115

Post by rickjames28 » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #34

This sort of thing is alive and well in US schools, too. The official policy of the Seattle Public School system is to stamp out racism in all its forms, and notice how many forms there are. (Note in particular the Cultural Racism section that includes, "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" as a form of racism that, by official policy, is to be stamped out by the government education sy…

The leftist, statist thought police is alive and well in the U.S. educational system.

Students, parents, and others need to stand up and get in the faces of these immoral leftists.

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#116

Post by gngeal » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

corresation wrote: post #114

gngeal wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hateful speech is not protected in Canada How do they prove that a speech is hateful instead of merely being ordinarily contemptuous?

Just talking abstractly (again, the only reason I mentioned that is that saying "free speech!" is a non-starter when you're calling someone a bitch -- even if unnamed, if any other party could identify who you mean, it isn't anonymous -- and bringing disrepute upon an institution), but Canadian rights are generally based upon the idea that your rights end where my nose begins, and your right to free speech ends when…

So calling an idiot an idiot is not an option in Canada?

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#117

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #96

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having a future time orientation What does that one even mean?

Here is a wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronemics I am not going to pretend to be able to understand it, but this part seems to be the most lucid explaination: "Just as monochronic and polychronic cultures have different time perspectives, understanding the time orientation of a culture is critical to becoming better able to successfully handle diplomatic situations. Americans, for instance h…

Future time orientation is also used to refer to a person having a low discount rate. I.e. suffering the pain of school now is worthwhile if it helps me avoid the pain of being uncredentialed in the future.

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#118

Post by rickjames28 » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 9:59 PM UTC

u2328 wrote: post #110

rickjames28 wrote: post #38

This "headteacher" should be arrested and prosecuted.

Kettle, meet pot.

Wrong. I consider that action by the teacher a direct threat to the student's civil rights at the very least.

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#119

Post by zimbatm » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 10:00 PM UTC

Yet another attack on an anti-authoritarian person.

The most compelling example that our society doesn't accept people with this personality treat is the psychiatrists who treat them as if they had a mental disorder.

http://www.honeycolony.com/article/psychiatrys-oppression-of...

Re: London student reported to police: “Enchanted by anarchism and individualism”

#120

Post by milsorgen » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 10:05 PM UTC

corresation wrote: post #95

stfu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in your world "Some bitch at school did x" falls under hateful speech/cyber-bullying? Well, I guess by now we have to prosecute half of the YouTube and Twitter population. After all all those "first" posters are most certainly making a highly discriminatory remark against all those coming "second".

No, stfu, my "world" isn't quite so black and white: The choice isn't between prosecution or free-for-all, but if you're trying to incite freedom of expression over hateful speech, all while bringing disrepute upon a law school, you probably aren't going to get very far.

I don't think using a mild profanity on twitter constitutes "expecting good judgement of those in law school" it seems like vast overreach to me and as long as we accept moments like this in any form it will do nothing but get worse.

If the graffiti of Pompeii is any indication humans want to be short, crass and coarse and I am okay with that and I think that is something we should accept and embrace as a society and culture. We give too much power to words when in fact it is the listener who derives the negative experience not the speaker.