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

Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#111

Post by iamben »

sethbannon wrote: post #17

For those unfamiliar with the issue of gay rights abuses in Russia, this article offers a fine history: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/12/gay-ri...

Dispatches, a show on Channel 4 in the UK did a show on it last night called 'Hunted'. There's a lot of chat on Twitter and FB about it because it was pretty harrowing television. You can probably find it on YouTube if you search 'Hunted Channel 4' or similar.

Trailer: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/videos/all/hun...

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#112

Post by osipov »

shalmanese wrote: post #59
olegious wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the white paper linked below- "Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime."

All state based sodomy laws were invalidated by Lawrence vs Texas in 2003 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ). The only reason the laws are still on the books is because they've been knowingly superceded.

Check out the Supremacy Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

"The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers."

Congress does not have an authority to govern sexual conduct. Just because enforcement of sodomy laws has been unpopular long before 2003, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#113

Post by boyter »

magicalist wrote: post #96
boyter wrote: post #5

The LGBT Russia thing is totally blown out of proportion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/203382931/Russian-Lgbt-Law-White-P... Before you decide to down-vote me into oblivion and accuse me of hating minority groups please read the white paper linked above. Note I am not affiliated with the person who wrote it or scribd. I just want people to see both sides of the argument. EDIT - And what a surprise down-voted. Seriously…

Still reading, but impressions on the intro and first chapter: what a totally bizarre paper. It's a "white paper", but it's written as an autobiographical narrative of his research process. And usually "Executive Summary" does not refer to a top 10 list. It's very obviously written for the purposes of advocacy, despite protestations that it's not. The defense of this law seems to be: 1) It's not that bad. It doesn't…

I agree that the conclusions are odd, however the material presented is what I am interested in. You can draw your own conclusions from there rather then from what the media is telling us.

One sentence?

"The law in its current form is an improvement over what existed before."

BTW I shouldn't have used the phrase "both sides". What I mean is we should not get caught up in the media's interpretation of the law. My mistake there and sorry for the confusion.

My referring to the "not that bad" is to way its being presented by the media.

I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed in the law. It's interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate "child-adult" relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional".

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#114

Post by ttdi »

boyter wrote: post #5

The LGBT Russia thing is totally blown out of proportion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/203382931/Russian-Lgbt-Law-White-P... Before you decide to down-vote me into oblivion and accuse me of hating minority groups please read the white paper linked above. Note I am not affiliated with the person who wrote it or scribd. I just want people to see both sides of the argument. EDIT - And what a surprise down-voted. Seriously…

I'm sorry, this paper is bizarre and somewhat incoherent. magicalist goes into some of the problems with it, but the even larger problem that I see is that it seems to completely ignore the larger climate of intimidation and erasure by public officials, and look at "are specific people being harmed by this specific law", and I'm disinclined to trust its analysis even on that.

It's written by somebody who claims to be a journalist and managing editor yet has basically zero online presence in bylines or anything that I can find. Nor does he provide any contact information (apart from being from Chicago, which, good for him, I guess?). That makes very little sense.

In the US at large, LGBT rights and support for them has been growing, imperfectly and inconsistently, but growing. In Russia, it seems that there's been a backlash, and Putin and company are stirring up public sentiment against LGBT people. I'll take the word of Russians that things are actively getting worse:

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201402/being-gay-...

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#115

Post by osipov »

mkr-hn wrote: post #98
boyter wrote: post #5

The LGBT Russia thing is totally blown out of proportion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/203382931/Russian-Lgbt-Law-White-P... Before you decide to down-vote me into oblivion and accuse me of hating minority groups please read the white paper linked above. Note I am not affiliated with the person who wrote it or scribd. I just want people to see both sides of the argument. EDIT - And what a surprise down-voted. Seriously…

I read the executive summary. It's great that Russia is making legal progress, and I mean that, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground where people are being beaten and arrested.

The paper also talks about statistics on how often gay people are beaten in Russia. United States is far worse in this respect. Further United States has a greater incarceration rate for gays than Russia.

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#116

Post by boyter »

magicalist wrote: post #104
magicalist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still reading, but impressions on the intro and first chapter: what a totally bizarre paper. It's a "white paper", but it's written as an autobiographical narrative of his research process. And usually "Executive Summary" does not refer to a top 10 list. It's very obviously written for the purposes of advocacy, despite protestations that it's not. The defense of this law seems to be: 1) It's not that bad. It doesn't…

"Would the US government and news media (all owned by multinational conglomerates) implement a enormous propaganda campaign demanding the repeal of Russian Federation Federal Law No. 135-FZ because of the potential revenue loss a company in violation could incur with a 90 day suspension resulting in lower than projected revenues leading to a negative impact on the company’s stock price and ultimately causing a negati…

Personally I ignored the conclusion's. I am more interested in the facts/citations which appear to be correct.

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#117

Post by Lazare »

osipov wrote: post #108
aray wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utah, while prohibiting gay marriage, nevertheless still let gay people meet (gatherings), distribute information, and speak publicly about the topic.

Russia allows these things too except for the part of getting minors involved. EDIT: The Wikipedia article is full of hedging on this topic, e.g. - "According to _some commentators_..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Bans_on_.... - "Under the statute it is _effectively illegal_", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#National_... Since when did journalists become legal scholars? Shoul…

This is absolutely false. From Wikipedia (with many, many, detailed citations and sources):

"Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in defense of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships."

You cannot hold a pride parade (a minor might see it); you cannot distribute brochures (a minor might read it); you cannot have a website (a minor might see it). The freedoms we take for granted in the West, limited though they may be, simply do not exist in Russia. Every single item that mentioned as something you can do in Utah is something you cannot do in Russia, by law. And that's not even touching on the more restrictive laws in many regions and cities, nor on the surge in hate crimes and other unofficial repression.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Bans_on_g... (Although really, just google it; there's tons of info.)

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#118

Post by boyter »

jkrems wrote: post #102
boyter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expected to get voted down. Not because what I posted didn't add value, but because this is the sort of topic I avoid in day to day conversation because it causes fights. There is too much emotion involved. I am not saying there are not problems. I am saying that the media coverage of it is overblown, and because of that any rational thought or discussion about it is impossible. I provided a link to a document whic…

No, it's not emotion in this case. The paper you linked begins with 100 repetitions of "did you know that the law actually is about children?". To which I have to answer: yes. And more importantly: yes, of course. That (hiding anti-gay legislation behind supposedly anti-pedophilia legislation) is a known strategy. It's actually one of the most disgusting things about this kind of legislation because it sends a messag…

Sorry I disagree. This topic is highly emotional. That's why this thread was identified as a flame war by HN and why there is so much heated discussion.

I agree that there is lots of legislation which uses anti-pedophilia as a way of passing though "Won't somebody please think of the children!" works, and that's why it is used. I disagree with it of course, but yes I am aware of it.

Wait you are saying that by deliberately excluding "gay" then its implied? Sorry but that's a bit of a stretch which I disagree with.

Look, as far as I can tell this law can be boiled down to "We don't want people to force non-traditional marriage beliefs on minors". The specifics of it have issues. I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed there though. Its interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate child-adult relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional" and "propaganda".

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#119

Post by voltagex_ »

devilshaircut wrote: post #95
[deleted] wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I find it horrific that you consider your rights to be personally violated by your making use of a free, non-government-controlled, non-required public service. I find it also horrific that you make a false parallel to text editors which also have demonstrable 'political' (as you've employed the term) positions.

I missed the deleted comment but I'm assuming it was something to do with Notepad++'s position on the Beijing Olympics?

Re: Google shows support for LGBT Olympians

#120

Post by boyter »

seivan wrote: post #99
boyter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expected to get voted down. Not because what I posted didn't add value, but because this is the sort of topic I avoid in day to day conversation because it causes fights. There is too much emotion involved. I am not saying there are not problems. I am saying that the media coverage of it is overblown, and because of that any rational thought or discussion about it is impossible. I provided a link to a document whic…

Reasonable discussion? Nothing you said or listed was reasonable. Read up http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201402/being-gay-...

I have to ask, what did I write that was not reasonable? I can only assume "blown out of proportion" but I have yet to see evidence to the contrary that the media has not done this.
Post reply on HN