4 ms·

Please if you can, give one example of a European government jailing someone for a thought crime. To save us both time and aggravation please keep the actual de

Please if you can, give one example of a European government jailing someone for a thought crime. To save us both time and aggravation please keep the actual definition of “thought crime” in mind, and don’t conflate it with something people actually did.

sandworm101 8y ago
Expression of thoughts can definitely be a crime. Saying that you support X Y or Z organization or ideology can definitely see you jailed. There is also a trend, even in the US, towards keeping some prisoners behind bars for thinking certain thoughts. Sex offenders in many US states can be held long after their sentences based on mental health determinations, determinations that turn on their response to questions: their thoughts. Whereas expression of thoughts can be clearly illegal (ie hate speech) simple consumption, reading, of such thoughts can land the reader in jail too. Governments aren't yet crawling into people's heads, but they are certainly willing to criminalize the communication of illegal thought.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  This is why I said, “To save us both time and aggravation please keep the actual definition of “thought crime” in mind, and don’t conflate it with something people actually did.“ Thought crime = the thought itself is a crime, i.e. simply having the thought. Expression is a totally separate thing, and using “thought crime” this way is just announcing that you didn’t actually read 1984. Governments aren't crawling into people's heads just yet, but they are certainly willing to criminalize the communication of thought. No shit. Communication has been subject to government intervention and overreach since th dawn of recorded history. The 1st Ammendment in the US was created for a reason.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    In the context of internet privacy, you can be jailed for merely visiting websites to read the illegal opinions of others.
bmelton 8y ago
France convicted 12 pro-Palestine activists for wearing "Boycott Israel" T-shirts. Azhar Ahmed, a British Muslim, was charged with treason, and ordered to pay a fine and complete community service because of a Facebook post he made wishing "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL" Herve Eon was convicted in France for insulting former French President Nicolas Sarkozy by holding a sign that said “get lost, jerk” And, despite your narrow definition, I posit that all of these are thought crimes in the common parlance, and even to your narrow definition, the first example showcases the assumption that being pro-Palestine is automatically anti-semitic, whether or not it actually is.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17188353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17188353 Seriously, if you don’t know what something means, don’t use the the damned phrase. “For insulting” “For wearing” are not thought crimes. A handy rule to detect a thought crime is this: unless someone was jailed just for thinking it wasn’t a thought crime. Please, actually read 1984.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    I've read 1984, thanks. As I mentioned (in an edit) to my post; in the first case, they weren't convicted for wearing T-shirts, because wearing T-shirts is perfectly legal. They wee convicted because of the presumption of anti-semitism in the message on the T-shirts, which is neither obvious nor absolute.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > Azhar Ahmed, a British Muslim, was charged with treason, and ordered to pay a fine and complete community service because of a Facebook post he made wishing "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL" https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/azhar-ahmed-sentencing-remarks-09102012.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...
jakelazaroff 8y ago
You seem to be under the impression that the act of communicating thoughts in some way precludes it from being "thoughtcrime". This is a ridiculously narrow and pedantic definition; we can't read minds. The term as it's generally used means being punished for expressing a particular viewpoint.
- OskarS 8y ago
  It's not a narrow and pedantic difference at all! It's the entire thing! You seem to be under some mistaken impression that you can say whatever you want whenever you want in the United States. You can't. There are many categories of speech that are banned in the US as well: if I think to myself "Tom Smith is a liar and a drunkard and he's cheating on his wife", that's perfectly fine, but if I communicate that to a large group of people in order to stain his reputation, that's illegal. See the difference? In neither the US nor the EU is thinking things illegal, but in both countries, expressing stuff can possibly be illegal. It's true that the US and the EU has slightly different categories of banned speech, but that's a difference in degree, not in kind. but neither region has anything close to "thoughtcrime". You have a poor understanding of these issues if you think that is the case.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I'm not under that impression; I've spoken a lot here on HN about the limits of free speech. Legal limitations on freedom of speech almost always stem from pragmatic consequences, e.g. unfair damage to Tom Smith's reputation. When people speak of "thoughtcrime", they refer to cases in which expressing an idea itself is seen as reason for punishment, regardless of whether any consequences occur. Here's my question: under your definition, how could "thoughtcrime" possibly be detected, let alone punished?
    - OskarS 8y ago
      Man, you guys should really read 1984, it's a great book! This is one of the central themes of 1984, that Ingsoc ("the Party") tries to control not just the speech and actions of their subjects, but their very thoughts. Literally: in 1984, having thoughts that goes against the party is illegal. That is why it's called "thoughtcrime", because it's the thought itself, even if it goes totally unexpressed in any way. Such crimes are punished by the "Thought police", who quite literally police thoughts. When a dangerous thought presents itself, you're supposed to use "crimestop", a technique for ridding yourself of that thought. Here's a quote from 1984: > The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. Oh, and yes: Newspeak! The language developed by the party with restricted vocabularies and grammar so that some thoughts will be literally unthinkable. I took that quote from the wikipedia page on "thoughtcrime", which helpfully begins like this: > A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, first published in 1949, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. Feel free to look in any other dictionary or reference work, they will all say the same thing, some variation on "a thought that is illegal". I could go on with many more examples of how 1984 talks about thoughts (you should google "doublethink"! or maybe just read the book), but you get my point. Your reaction, "how could 'thoughtcrime' possibly be detected, let alone punished?" is what the book is about. Every reader of 1984 reacts that way in the beginning, and the book is an exploration about what that very concept means, and what the implications are. Look, the argument you are making is something like "European hate speech laws are an unacceptable abridgment of free speech and democratic rights". Which is a fine argument to make: I personally don't think so, but reasonable people can disagree on it and discuss it. What it is not is "thoughtcrime". It's just not what the term means.
donatj 8y ago
Within the last week the UK arrested and jailed a man for being a known right wing sympathizer in public. His crime? His mere existence might cause disruption.
- jrs95 8y ago
  To me it seems the reason people are being so pedantic about the meaning of “thought crime” is that they’re actually glad this sort of thing happens. I don’t even agree with Tommy Robinson but this sort of thing is incredibly dangerous. We cannot be free if the state has the power to arrest people who disagree with them. Period. This must be an absolute right regardless of your fee-fees being hurt, or the next thing you know the West will be bankrolling the Israelis to genocide the Palestinians and it’ll be illegal for you to say anything about it.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Can you tell me which country allows people to threaten witnesses at trial?Which country allows reporters to call a defendent a muslim child rapist before the verdict is reached?
    - jrs95 8y ago
      If it had been the other way around and some white guy was being called a “Nazi child rapist”, I’d expect them to get away with it in pretty much any western country. It’s true that his behavior was illegal, but the reason he was prosecuted was ultimately the content of his speech in my opinion. There have been other right wing figures who’s names I don’t recall who were also recently convicted, and they weren’t speaking in a court room at all. Other anecdotes mentioned above were French pro-Palestine activists. You’re right that Robinson was in the wrong on this one and that he did commit a crime; I wouldn’t have used him as an example had he not been brought up specifically. Even in the U.S., there are people actively lobbying to use the government, usually state governments, to restrict the BDS movement. In my opinion there’s been a lot of media attention around silencing right wing speech in order to get the left to comply in undermining the underlying legal principles. But at the same time, quieter work is being done to restrict left wing speech as well. This has already been put in place in Europe and there seems to be bipartisan support for it in the U.S.
amaccuish 8y ago
US has absolute free speech. Being from Europe, I tend to disagree with this form, as I believe meaningful free speech is precious, and we shouldn't allow some right wing extremists to take advantage and ruin it by using it as an excuse for hateful language that contributes precisely nothing to political debate.
- jrs95 8y ago
  You’ve been duped if you think this is about right wing extremists. The same laws have been used to silence pro-Palestine activists.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  The US does not have absolute freedom of speech. The canonical example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal. You also cannot call 911 for non-emergencies, distribute child pornography, threaten or harass another person, defame an individual or organization, etc.

sandworm101 8y ago

Expression of thoughts can definitely be a crime. Saying that you support X Y or Z organization or ideology can definitely see you jailed. There is also a trend, even in the US, towards keeping some prisoners behind bars for thinking certain thoughts. Sex offenders in many US states can be held long after their sentences based on mental health determinations, determinations that turn on their response to questions: their thoughts. Whereas expression of thoughts can be clearly illegal (ie hate speech) simple consumption, reading, of such thoughts can land the reader in jail too. Governments aren't yet crawling into people's heads, but they are certainly willing to criminalize the communication of illegal thought.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
This is why I said, “To save us both time and aggravation please keep the actual definition of “thought crime” in mind, and don’t conflate it with something people actually did.“ Thought crime = the thought itself is a crime, i.e. simply having the thought. Expression is a totally separate thing, and using “thought crime” this way is just announcing that you didn’t actually read 1984. Governments aren't crawling into people's heads just yet, but they are certainly willing to criminalize the communication of thought. No shit. Communication has been subject to government intervention and overreach since th dawn of recorded history. The 1st Ammendment in the US was created for a reason.
- jrs95 8y ago
  In the context of internet privacy, you can be jailed for merely visiting websites to read the illegal opinions of others.

bmelton 8y ago

France convicted 12 pro-Palestine activists for wearing "Boycott Israel" T-shirts. Azhar Ahmed, a British Muslim, was charged with treason, and ordered to pay a fine and complete community service because of a Facebook post he made wishing "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL" Herve Eon was convicted in France for insulting former French President Nicolas Sarkozy by holding a sign that said “get lost, jerk” And, despite your narrow definition, I posit that all of these are thought crimes in the common parlance, and even to your narrow definition, the first example showcases the assumption that being pro-Palestine is automatically anti-semitic, whether or not it actually is.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17188353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17188353 Seriously, if you don’t know what something means, don’t use the the damned phrase. “For insulting” “For wearing” are not thought crimes. A handy rule to detect a thought crime is this: unless someone was jailed just for thinking it wasn’t a thought crime. Please, actually read 1984.
- bmelton 8y ago
  I've read 1984, thanks. As I mentioned (in an edit) to my post; in the first case, they weren't convicted for wearing T-shirts, because wearing T-shirts is perfectly legal. They wee convicted because of the presumption of anti-semitism in the message on the T-shirts, which is neither obvious nor absolute.
DanBC 8y ago
> Azhar Ahmed, a British Muslim, was charged with treason, and ordered to pay a fine and complete community service because of a Facebook post he made wishing "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL" https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/azhar-ahmed-sentencing-remarks-09102012.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...

jakelazaroff 8y ago

You seem to be under the impression that the act of communicating thoughts in some way precludes it from being "thoughtcrime". This is a ridiculously narrow and pedantic definition; we can't read minds. The term as it's generally used means being punished for expressing a particular viewpoint.

OskarS 8y ago
It's not a narrow and pedantic difference at all! It's the entire thing! You seem to be under some mistaken impression that you can say whatever you want whenever you want in the United States. You can't. There are many categories of speech that are banned in the US as well: if I think to myself "Tom Smith is a liar and a drunkard and he's cheating on his wife", that's perfectly fine, but if I communicate that to a large group of people in order to stain his reputation, that's illegal. See the difference? In neither the US nor the EU is thinking things illegal, but in both countries, expressing stuff can possibly be illegal. It's true that the US and the EU has slightly different categories of banned speech, but that's a difference in degree, not in kind. but neither region has anything close to "thoughtcrime". You have a poor understanding of these issues if you think that is the case.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I'm not under that impression; I've spoken a lot here on HN about the limits of free speech. Legal limitations on freedom of speech almost always stem from pragmatic consequences, e.g. unfair damage to Tom Smith's reputation. When people speak of "thoughtcrime", they refer to cases in which expressing an idea itself is seen as reason for punishment, regardless of whether any consequences occur. Here's my question: under your definition, how could "thoughtcrime" possibly be detected, let alone punished?
  - OskarS 8y ago
    Man, you guys should really read 1984, it's a great book! This is one of the central themes of 1984, that Ingsoc ("the Party") tries to control not just the speech and actions of their subjects, but their very thoughts. Literally: in 1984, having thoughts that goes against the party is illegal. That is why it's called "thoughtcrime", because it's the thought itself, even if it goes totally unexpressed in any way. Such crimes are punished by the "Thought police", who quite literally police thoughts. When a dangerous thought presents itself, you're supposed to use "crimestop", a technique for ridding yourself of that thought. Here's a quote from 1984: > The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. Oh, and yes: Newspeak! The language developed by the party with restricted vocabularies and grammar so that some thoughts will be literally unthinkable. I took that quote from the wikipedia page on "thoughtcrime", which helpfully begins like this: > A thoughtcrime is an Orwellian neologism used to describe an illegal thought. The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, first published in 1949, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question Ingsoc, the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. Feel free to look in any other dictionary or reference work, they will all say the same thing, some variation on "a thought that is illegal". I could go on with many more examples of how 1984 talks about thoughts (you should google "doublethink"! or maybe just read the book), but you get my point. Your reaction, "how could 'thoughtcrime' possibly be detected, let alone punished?" is what the book is about. Every reader of 1984 reacts that way in the beginning, and the book is an exploration about what that very concept means, and what the implications are. Look, the argument you are making is something like "European hate speech laws are an unacceptable abridgment of free speech and democratic rights". Which is a fine argument to make: I personally don't think so, but reasonable people can disagree on it and discuss it. What it is not is "thoughtcrime". It's just not what the term means.

donatj 8y ago

Within the last week the UK arrested and jailed a man for being a known right wing sympathizer in public. His crime? His mere existence might cause disruption.

jrs95 8y ago
To me it seems the reason people are being so pedantic about the meaning of “thought crime” is that they’re actually glad this sort of thing happens. I don’t even agree with Tommy Robinson but this sort of thing is incredibly dangerous. We cannot be free if the state has the power to arrest people who disagree with them. Period. This must be an absolute right regardless of your fee-fees being hurt, or the next thing you know the West will be bankrolling the Israelis to genocide the Palestinians and it’ll be illegal for you to say anything about it.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Can you tell me which country allows people to threaten witnesses at trial?Which country allows reporters to call a defendent a muslim child rapist before the verdict is reached?
  - jrs95 8y ago
    If it had been the other way around and some white guy was being called a “Nazi child rapist”, I’d expect them to get away with it in pretty much any western country. It’s true that his behavior was illegal, but the reason he was prosecuted was ultimately the content of his speech in my opinion. There have been other right wing figures who’s names I don’t recall who were also recently convicted, and they weren’t speaking in a court room at all. Other anecdotes mentioned above were French pro-Palestine activists. You’re right that Robinson was in the wrong on this one and that he did commit a crime; I wouldn’t have used him as an example had he not been brought up specifically. Even in the U.S., there are people actively lobbying to use the government, usually state governments, to restrict the BDS movement. In my opinion there’s been a lot of media attention around silencing right wing speech in order to get the left to comply in undermining the underlying legal principles. But at the same time, quieter work is being done to restrict left wing speech as well. This has already been put in place in Europe and there seems to be bipartisan support for it in the U.S.

amaccuish 8y ago

US has absolute free speech. Being from Europe, I tend to disagree with this form, as I believe meaningful free speech is precious, and we shouldn't allow some right wing extremists to take advantage and ruin it by using it as an excuse for hateful language that contributes precisely nothing to political debate.

jrs95 8y ago
You’ve been duped if you think this is about right wing extremists. The same laws have been used to silence pro-Palestine activists.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
The US does not have absolute freedom of speech. The canonical example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is illegal. You also cannot call 911 for non-emergencies, distribute child pornography, threaten or harass another person, defame an individual or organization, etc.