4 ms·

I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN commentators want to go to prison.

p_j_w 5y ago
This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque trial sound dramatically overblown.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.
  - p_j_w 5y ago
    Come again?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    If he publishes an article telling their job, age, etc, and the court publishes a judgement saying that "he published an article telling their job, age, etc", then you can figure out who they are from his article, but not from the court's judgement. I'm sure I'll never understand how this is "the court claim[ing] for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray."
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Of course that's not what happened. All these vague details were matters for a trial in criminal court, which trial was described by a higher court as "unlawful", "procedurally unfair", and "tainted by apparent bias". Reporting such matters to the public is not a crime in a civilized jurisdiction.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN commentators want to go to prison. As far as I know, most HN commentators are 1) American, 2) pseudonymous, 3) and unlikely to be extradited because I doubt these kinds of laws would be constitutional in the US.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Haha yeah the extradition rules are hardly symmetric are they? How the mighty empire has fallen...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    Aren't they though? It's just one of the requirements is the conduct would have to be a crime in both countries? It's not like extradition is "you give us everyone we want, and we'll give you everyone you want."
    - Talanes 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... The US can extradite UK citizens for US crimes committed in the UK, but not vice-versa.

p_j_w 5y ago

This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque trial sound dramatically overblown.

jessaustin 5y ago
So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  Come again?
- CRConrad 5y ago
  If he publishes an article telling their job, age, etc, and the court publishes a judgement saying that "he published an article telling their job, age, etc", then you can figure out who they are from his article, but not from the court's judgement. I'm sure I'll never understand how this is "the court claim[ing] for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray."
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Of course that's not what happened. All these vague details were matters for a trial in criminal court, which trial was described by a higher court as "unlawful", "procedurally unfair", and "tainted by apparent bias". Reporting such matters to the public is not a crime in a civilized jurisdiction.

tablespoon 5y ago

> I guess we're unlikely to see the forbidden phrases Murray dared to utter, since after all they're forbidden and few HN commentators want to go to prison. As far as I know, most HN commentators are 1) American, 2) pseudonymous, 3) and unlikely to be extradited because I doubt these kinds of laws would be constitutional in the US.

jessaustin 5y ago
Haha yeah the extradition rules are hardly symmetric are they? How the mighty empire has fallen...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  Aren't they though? It's just one of the requirements is the conduct would have to be a crime in both countries? It's not like extradition is "you give us everyone we want, and we'll give you everyone you want."
  - Talanes 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... The US can extradite UK citizens for US crimes committed in the UK, but not vice-versa.