Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgt101 | Hacker News Reader

The two UK cases:

- Nazi pug man got a fine of £800; no jail.

- Cheshire people; in the context of rioting and the consequences of rioting.

For the record I think (personal view only) that the Nazi pug man should never have been prosecuted, I personally find it grossly offensive but I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them.

The Cheshire thing I find much more serious, it seemed to me that this was about people calling for other people to get hurt and killed. Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA?

Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control?

View on HN

> Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA?

In cases like that, courts in the US make the determination as to whether the speech is protected based on whether it may cause “imminent lawless action”—hard to say in the Cheshire case without seeing what they were actually posting, but encouraging people to start violent riots would not be protected in the US either. There are plenty of cases of people getting arrested in the US for Facebook posts inciting violence.

have we already forgotten recent event when insurance company send a woman to jail for threats (unrealistic).

US woman arrested for allegedly threatening health firm: ‘Delay, deny, depose’

is this equivalent of EU meme jailing?

>Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control?

Why do people constantly and intentionally misconstrue arguments? It's so obnoxious and intellectually dishonest. I didn't say it was absolute. It's like people can't even have a conversation anymore without dealing with this.

>I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them.

Oh, so you're a Nazi sympathizer? See how annoying that is when people intentionally misconstrue arguments?

I know it's a habit these days with the news and I don't mean to jump on your shit, it's quite common; but it's bleeding into person to person conversation and you just can't have any meaningful conversation this way.

I did not see that as an attack towards you or miscontruing any argument you made, rather putting things in perspective for people who may believe JD Vance & co when he talks about freedom of speech. I also did not see your statement "seems abhorrent to americans" as a value judgement you hold in regards to european freedom of expression laws.

>> These things seem abhorrent to Americans who have nearly unlimited free speech protection.

> Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control?

I said it was near unlimited protection and he claimed I said it was absolute so he could make a counter argument. He intentionally misconstrued my argument to make a counter argument. What am I supposed to do, defend and argument I didn't make? It kills any conversation or sharing of ideas. It's annoying.

The news does this all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com