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

371–377 of 377 posts

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#371

Post by aa-jv »

mrtksn wrote: post #361
aa-jv wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 geno…

So in other words it as Idi Amin of Uganda said: There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech :) Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually.

Speech isn't enough. There has to be freedom of action, too. And yes, constant vigilance is required for freedom.

>Just because you eventually go free after your life gets ruined by the government doesn't really make you better than Uganda. In those shitty countries they too go free eventually.

A truly imperialist perspective. None of this is relevant for any government engaged in genocide, anyway. My freedom of speech means nothing if the government under which its right is granted is, meanwhile, massacring innocents at atrocious scale ..

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#372

Post by sequoia »

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…

> the US seems beholden to Israel

Can you explain how Trump's MoU fits into this "beholden to Israel" model? This deal goes directly against Israel's interests and wishes.

Biden forced Israel to stay their hand during their war with Hamas, for example telling them not to go into Rafah, which delayed them for some time. So is Israel controlled by the US, or is it the other way around? (When they did go into Rafah, they found both Israeli hostages and Hamas leadership, proving that Biden was wrong for telling them not to take the fight there.)

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#373

Post by econ »

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…

Speech is now property.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#374

Post by NopIdoN »

NopIdoN wrote: post #369
bentley wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It’s not unusual for a verb to mean something different when used transitively versus when used intransitively. Can you please give other examples? I can't think of any and I can't let it go

Anyone?

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#375

Post by thin_carapace »

mmooss wrote: post #297
onemoresoop wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circumcision is fine I guess. What’s weird is when it’s not done in a proper setting (hospital) but in a ritual and by some person who is not a medically licensed. Another thing that we should all have a problem with is the non consenting age of 0. Ultimately, at least hire a doctor and do it in sanitary conditions.

There's nothing weird about a religious ritual in a religious setting. > not a medically licensed > hire a doctor and do it in sanitary conditions. Most procedures are done at home by unlicensed people (e.g., family, home healthcare aids). The people who perform circumcisions are trained, experienced, and, afaik, licensed. There's no crisis of bad health outcomes. It's a non-issue created by anti-semites to attack Ju…

noting the idea that it is anti semitic to disagree with circumcision, for later evaluation

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#376

Post by bentley »

efreak wrote: post #370
bentley wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 everyda…

According to multiple dictionaries online: The intransitive verb _trespass_ means _violate_. The transitive verb tresspass also means violate. If you search for translations/conjugations of _tresspass_, _was trespassed_ is not listed (_was trespassing_ is, referring to the trespasser). The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you'…

> The transitive verb tresspass also means violate.

That is one definition, yes, though to my ear it feels archaic and has mostly been replaced with “trespass against.”

> If you search for translations/conjugations of _tresspass_, _was trespassed_ is not listed (_was trespassing_ is, referring to the trespasser).

That’s not surprising, since as I said, “trespass someone” in the sense of “ban someone from property” is not everyday usage, except by cops.

> The _noun_ tresspass, on the other hand, can refer to the charge, the act itself, or a case regarding such. Perhaps this is what you're thinking of?

No, what I’m thinking of is exactly what I said. Watch police bodycam videos and you’ll encounter this usage all the time. See also this blog post that I linked in another comment: https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/dictionary/trespassers-wi...

> They aren't trained in legal language.

I wasn’t referring to formal legal language. I was referring to language in common use by police when enforcing law, as well as some commenters on Hacker News discussing cases of police enforcing law.

Re: The US ambassador had Belgian police stop our reporting

#377

Post by mmooss »

hector124 wrote: post #368
mmooss wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing weird about a religious ritual in a religious setting. > not a medically licensed > hire a doctor and do it in sanitary conditions. Most procedures are done at home by unlicensed people (e.g., family, home healthcare aids). The people who perform circumcisions are trained, experienced, and, afaik, licensed. There's no crisis of bad health outcomes. It's a non-issue created by anti-semites to attack Ju…

> created by anti-semites to attack Judaism, and persuade some others to join in FWIW I reject this characterization entirely and I think your position is ideologically eroded by you reaching for it. People are allowed to criticize circumcision as a practice without being antisemitic. The entire reason I'm posting under a throwaway right now is because I expected this kind of accusation to come out.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN