4 ms·

> I was told that my reporting had insulted the Korean people, and that I needed to admit my mistakes. They produced copies of three articles that had been publ

• Kristine1975 10y ago
  Yes, but using "bark" as a synonym for "shout" doesn't count as hate speech.
  • jkot 10y ago
    It has negative connotation. People were charged (and jailed) for less. Plus he wrote a bit more.
    • BasDirks 10y ago
      It has a negative connotation so it is hate speech? I think not. [edited: used to read hate crime, wasn't paying attention]
      • ryanlol 10y ago
        You're the first one to bring up hate crimes here. Edit: downvotes? Maybe you should look up UK hate speech laws before deciding that violating them constitutes as hate crime.
        • throwaway7767 10y ago
          You're responding in a thread that started by someone claiming this was hate speech, and your response to one of the child posters is that "You're the first one to bring up hate crimes here". I imagine this is the reason for the completely warranted downvotes. Context matters, and you're just diverting the discussion without adding anything.
          • ryanlol 10y ago
            hate speech=/=hate crimes UK has had, and still does have very aggressive legislation to combat "hate speech" and offensive speech in general. It's not very far fetched that such a statement could have been in violation of said laws, but that certainly wouldn't make it a hate crime. While jkots wording could have been better, there's still a very important distinction here.
            • ptaipale 10y ago
              Well, if there's very aggressive legislation to combat "hate speech", is it unreasonable to call this target of combat "hate crimes" (or hate "crimes")? With such aggressive legislation, I'm a bit wary of even going to the UK (I'm not a native speaker of English.)
              • ryanlol 10y ago
                Yes, hate crimes are generally defined by the perpetrators motivations.
            • jkot 10y ago
              I think take away is that HN crowd has no sense of humor.
              • ethbro 10y ago
                I got a chuckle out of this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11699860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11699860 More accurate would probably be to say, given the power of a vote, people with no sense of humor will use it to punish humorous comments. I feel like the larger majority typically rewards comments that are both humorous and provide content to the discussion.
      • venomsnake 10y ago
        Everything could be hate speech for someone. Which what makes said laws arbitrary and dangerous.
    • maze-le 10y ago
      >People were charged (and jailed) The question is: Where? In the UK, or in NK? Also: if something is legal doesn't make it legitimate.
      • ryanlol 10y ago
        Don't know about jailing, but UK certainly has a tendency to fine (and otherwise very aggressively pursue) people for saying far less offensive things. Look at the public order act for example.
      • jkot 10y ago
        UK
  • tnuc 10y ago
    It very well could, the UK has some very interesting laws. Just imagine if he had used the word 'bomb'.
    • kbart 10y ago
      In Germany, you can go to prison for up to 3 years[1] for insulting a head of state, organs or representatives of foreign states. 1. http://en.alalam.ir/news/1819424 http://en.alalam.ir/news/1819424
      • ryanlol 10y ago
        And in the UK it was illegal to insult people until 2014 http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/
• venomsnake 10y ago
  And makes you wonder if one will prefer NK way to UK libel laws.