Hacker News Reader

Comment by Supermancho | Hacker News Reader

> Under Brandenburg, even advocacy of criminal conduct is constitutionally protected unless it is "directed" at inciting "imminent lawless action" and "likely" to do so. Bailey's joke plainly did not satisfy either of those prongs.

I just don't understand how a judge would arrive at this interpretation. Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm. How about directed societal, self-harm? Don't call the police if you're sick, they might shoot? This is a demonstrated effect, in areas of the US, prior to the pandemic. This kind of lawless misinformation would be in-addition-to.

View on HN

Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home, wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed...

And anyway, as stupid as his joke was, I don't see (just like the judge) how any reasonable person could've interpreted it as anything but that. Arbitrary abuse of police power is much bigger threat to society than some (potential) idiots posting stupid jooks on Facebook.

> Perhaps, in no way does that justify a SWAT team invading your home,

A separate claim against excessive force, would be the proper response. The circumstance surrounding the arrest is incidental to the ruling.

> wrongfully arresting you and threatening you by up to 15 years in prison. Especially when the police officers know full well that the charges will be dismissed...

None of this was decided, as you claim. The suit had enough merit to go in front of a judge. I don't think it's justice, as it stands. Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

> Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully (with lethal force haha?), as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Satire of government officials is a fundamental and inviolable right of American citizens. As a form of political speech, it is part of the core of the First Amendment. If you cannot reconcile yourself to that, you should not live here.

> Satire of government officials is a fundamental and inviolable right of American citizens.

This is factually incorrect. eg You cannot impersonate a government official, as a prank, then claim first amendment protections against damage caused.

What you mean by "Satire" is either moving the goalpost or misunderstanding the concepts relevant to the case. Good luck with whatever.

Do you not actually know what satire is? We can 'impersonate' our government officials on national TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmUhLMLnatk

https://theweek.com/feature/briefing/1019449/a-history-of-pr...

Katt Williams: “Police can kill your ass today and come up with a story for the news tomorrow.”

https://letterboxd.com/popdetective/list/police-brutality-as...

> You cannot convince me otherwise.

A classic sign of a logically sound and definitely not at all emotionally-charged position.

Should anyone who has ever hyperbolically referred to police as "nazis" or said sarcastically that we are "living in a police state" be legally punished? Absurd.

>I don't think it's justice, as it stands.

Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?

My reading of the part you quoted is, "It isn't justice because only the charges were dismissed, they owe him more than a simple apology."

Right, but the preceding sentences seem to conflict with that. More over, the following part of the comment

>Stating that the local police are acting unlawfully ... as a prank, is dangerous. You cannot convince me otherwise.

suggests that the guy who made the joke did something dangerous and should be punished for it. At least, that's the implication I'm reading.

I think you're right. The meaning is unclear.

> Do you think the guy who made the joke should go to prison?

I think the legal precedent is damaging. I make no judgement on sentencing, as there was no harm done.

What legal precedent? The existing legal precedent that satire is okay?

To be clear, the precedent the case establishes, expanding the previous slightly.

> Imminent lawless action is a very narrow scope and does not overlap with the "fire in a theater" danger of false alarm.

Yeah, but “fire in a crowded theater” was dicta (a non-controlling tangent, basically) that (1) didn’t reflect the law as it existed prior to the case it was written in, (2) didn't illustrate or reflect the new rule in the case it was written in, and (3) was written in a decision that has since been effectively overruled and is widely regarded as one of the worst intrusion on core political speech ever allowed by the Supreme Court.

It is not, and never has been a guide to (or even accurate illustration of) unprotected speech. Despite how catchy it is and how popular it has become as something misused as if it was such a guide.

The statement could be seen as harmful. But if you put all statements ever said on a gamut between harmful and helpful, at the risk of being recursive, I’d say about 50% would be on either side. That’s why thresholds are important.

The way things stand now, you can say much more harmful things online. Society doesn’t see a problem with it. And that’s fine. We don’t need to child-proof and infantilise our language, thoughts, and jokes.

Really? You think 50% of all statements ever made in public can be reasonably taken as harmful?

I get that you're trying to make a point on the utility of judging some statements to be "harmful, but not overly so," but the assertion is ridiculous.

Yes. If you put them on a gamut and bin them into two categories based on where they fall on the harmful-helpful spectrum, you’d get close to 50/50. Maybe 60/40.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com