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

After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#41

Post by sarcasmatwork »

logicprog wrote: post #17
clarada wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you immediately just assumed it's Raichik lying rather than Anthony, who is a politician after all.

Yeah because she has an extensive history of taking things completely out of context, distorting them, and outright lying about them, as well as a stated belief that clear people and organizations are inherently groomers regardless of the context or evidence, like when she accused the Trevor Project of Grooming kids. So even by her own admission she would call things grooming that no reasonable person would, so if we…

Stop trusting MSM, you seem to be regurgitating their talking points.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#42

Post by Simulacra »

I think people should have the absolute right to free speech so long as it doesn't harm another person, but in the same token, with free-speech, comes the ability for others to amplify that speech. Good, bad, agreeable, or not.

Censorship is too easy for others to use as a club against persons they disagree with. Let the sunlight of public scrutiny be the judge.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#43

Post by Uinchuling »

hmcq6 wrote: post #36
Uinchuling wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that this refers to a mayor being spanked by a drag queen at a public event. To many, myself included, the absence of children does not erase the absurdity and degeneracy of this stunt. It's still unacceptable. If children were present, it ought to have been criminal.

So who do you vote for? Hasn't pretty much every republican been caught doing drag in high school? Edit: it’s always either school spirit week or Halloween

I agree there is no fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. It's a disgrace.

The last time our people won an election was in the 30s. It's looking like the next time will be too.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#44

Post by dekhn »

richbell wrote: post #19
chrsig wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence "or something"

My point is specifically that saying "pedophilia or something" is disingenuous. "Or something" could be completely innocuous.

Is being pedantic about this adding anything to the conversation?

What the site does is not innocuous; we already know that.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#45

Post by dekhn »

bruceb wrote: post #38
hmcq6 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already laws against defamation, incitement to violence, and hate speech. What is being proposed in the article is that Libs of tiktok is inciting terrorism (or terroristic threats). This isn't a new type of censorship. So the question isn't "what type of new censorship do you propose?" but "does this behavior meet the threshold to be considered behavior we've already collectively deemed illegal?".

"There are already laws against...hate speech." As this is a US context, I am curious what specific laws against "hate speech" you think are in existence?

https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=four&lin...

422.7. Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.6, any hate crime that is not made punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine, if the crime is committed against the person or property of another for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with that other person’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States under any of the following circumstances, which shall be charged in the accusatory pleading:

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#46

Post by bruceb »

dekhn wrote: post #45
bruceb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are already laws against...hate speech." As this is a US context, I am curious what specific laws against "hate speech" you think are in existence?

https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=four&lin... 422.7. Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.6, any hate crime that is not made punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by bot…

This link has nothing about speech.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#47

Post by GloomyBoots »

bruceb wrote: post #38
hmcq6 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already laws against defamation, incitement to violence, and hate speech. What is being proposed in the article is that Libs of tiktok is inciting terrorism (or terroristic threats). This isn't a new type of censorship. So the question isn't "what type of new censorship do you propose?" but "does this behavior meet the threshold to be considered behavior we've already collectively deemed illegal?".

"There are already laws against...hate speech." As this is a US context, I am curious what specific laws against "hate speech" you think are in existence?

Florida recently passed HB 269 in which acts that are generally uncontroversially categorized as speech were criminalized. There are also anti-BDS laws, etc.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#48

Post by aniftythrifrty »

logicprog wrote: post #6
logicprog wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a specific audience that they have cultivated, though. And almost universally with a highly specific framing. What they are doing is finding posts from queer children, teachers, or parents, adding a line that frames it as inherently pedophilic or something, and then posting it to their extremely large follower base of explicitly bigoted people that would not probably have been aware of the post otherwise . Those p…

It's actually like well-known internet etiquette in many places that if you're going to share a post from a person you vehemently disagree with to a different Community or fan base or audience or whatever that also disagrees with them, that you block out their username and any other identifying info for precisely this reason, to prevent them from getting harassed. Chaya Raichik doesn't respect that.

internet etiquette... lol

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#49

Post by dekhn »

bruceb wrote: post #46
dekhn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=four&lin... 422.7. Except in the case of a person punished under Section 422.6, any hate crime that is not made punishable by imprisonment in the state prison shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by bot…

This link has nothing about speech.

yes but 422.6 has been used to arrest folks who were making racist speech, but IIUC he was extradited back to Colorado on another charge first.

Re: After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed

#50

Post by kcplate »

aniftythrifrty wrote: post #48
logicprog wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually like well-known internet etiquette in many places that if you're going to share a post from a person you vehemently disagree with to a different Community or fan base or audience or whatever that also disagrees with them, that you block out their username and any other identifying info for precisely this reason, to prevent them from getting harassed. Chaya Raichik doesn't respect that.

internet etiquette... lol

Yep. That one made me snicker as well…
Post reply on HN