4 ms·

KSA are simply further along the same spectrum as other authoritarians. In the UK the police will arrest you for social media posts as well - i.e. "causing off

KSA are simply further along the same spectrum as other authoritarians. In the UK the police will arrest you for social media posts as well - i.e. "causing offense" or "hate speech". In the KSA insulting the monarchy is hate speech. Personally I dislike the concept, but there are many who don't see an equivalence.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
club_tropical 4y ago
Exactly. The difference is that the speech rules in KSA are more formal. Every country also makes a public example of certain prosecutions, giving enormously harsh sentences, to intimidate others.
gambiting 4y ago
You don't think people should be arrested for hate speech? If someone says "we need to kill all the Jews", that's fine? Police shouldn't at least investigate?
- superkuh 4y ago
  Threats of violence are a different thing than "hate speech".
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    They are a different level of hate speech. As the poster up above said, they're "simply further along the same spectrum" of hate speech.
    - superkuh 4y ago
      No. Threats of violence are against the law. That is significantly different. Saying offensive things about protected classes (hate speech) is not against the law (in the USA). But we (apparently) need to ask ourselves why this distinction exists. ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... Hate speech, "further up the spectrum" is not against the law because it doesn't violate the rights or the volition of anyone nor defraud them or hurt them. It's just stupid and offensive. In some context enough to be fighting words, but not in all contexts. Why? Because things that are against the law invoke the use of violent force by the government. Invoking violent force to deprive a person of their volition is harm done far beyond some offensive speech. It is disproportionate and makes things worse. That's why things that are just speech are protected (from government use of force) in the USA by our constitution. Without this protection you end up with governments slowly drifting over to behave like the Saudis. It may take a while, but every nation state will get there without laws to prevent it.
- fareesh 4y ago
  It depends on the context. It is written in your comment and I would not want you to be arrested nor investigated. There is a war between Ukraine and Russia. I am sure there are a large number of angry Ukranians who have made similar unthinking cruel statements about Russians in exasperation and anger. I don't think they are a danger to society. There has been an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine for many years. Some bystander may have been killed by the IDF and their families, in their grief, in a moment of unthinking weakness, said something bigoted. I don't think they are a danger to society. Incitement to violence is a crime and has some criteria to be satisfied before it becomes criminal. In those cases the words ought to be treated as instructions, and so the act of engaging in a conspiracy to harm someone is the crime, not the words themselves.
jstx1 4y ago
Yeah, and I'm on the same spectrum of athleticism as Usain Bolt. He's just a bit further along the spectrum. All you're saying is that there are different levels of authoritarianism (of course there are). There's still a huge difference in the levels of human rights and personal freedom in these two countries.
wcarss 4y ago
I am willing to say I see your point. There are similarities in the structure of the situation of facing consequences for speech. You say something, someone doesn't like it, you face a consequence. But there's a broad spectrum in the possibilities there. Who said something, who did they say it to, why did they say it, what did they mean by it, was someone injured or endangered by their speech -- if so, who? What is the relationship between these people in terms of the power they each have access to? What is the context? What were the consequences, who thought of them, how are they realized? These and more are all important questions to ask -- it is not so simple as, "consequences for speech is scary stuff". For example, a rich fella using paid ads to attack some poor person he specifically dislikes, spreading lies and using his means to ruin a life? There are laws to make that have consequences, and most people would agree they are just. A king imprisoning someone for life because they spoke a dissenting opinion? Most of us would feel that is unjust. The power relationship, the proportionality, the fairness -- they're all wrong. A university professor repeatedly telling "off-color jokes" along sexual or racial lines, after being asked to stop, and eventually being yelled at, possibly losing his position? Sure, that's consequences too. Is it really the same in any meaningful way? Is there some mechanism whereby the one becomes the other? I absolutely do not think so.
kmac_ 4y ago
Ah, symmetrism and whataboutism in one. No, KSA and UK are not equal.
- fareesh 4y ago
  The Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. Such advocation is punishable by up to life imprisonment under the Act. Though still in the statute book, the law is no longer enforced.
  - kmac_ 4y ago
    Women's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion - comparing freedoms in UK and KSA and stating that they are comparable in any way is ridiculous.
    - fareesh 4y ago
      They are comparable exactly in the way that you can get arrested and put in jail for posting your opinion on social media if it goes against orthodoxy
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

club_tropical 4y ago

Exactly. The difference is that the speech rules in KSA are more formal. Every country also makes a public example of certain prosecutions, giving enormously harsh sentences, to intimidate others.

gambiting 4y ago

You don't think people should be arrested for hate speech? If someone says "we need to kill all the Jews", that's fine? Police shouldn't at least investigate?

superkuh 4y ago
Threats of violence are a different thing than "hate speech".
- anonymousab 4y ago
  They are a different level of hate speech. As the poster up above said, they're "simply further along the same spectrum" of hate speech.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    No. Threats of violence are against the law. That is significantly different. Saying offensive things about protected classes (hate speech) is not against the law (in the USA). But we (apparently) need to ask ourselves why this distinction exists. ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... Hate speech, "further up the spectrum" is not against the law because it doesn't violate the rights or the volition of anyone nor defraud them or hurt them. It's just stupid and offensive. In some context enough to be fighting words, but not in all contexts. Why? Because things that are against the law invoke the use of violent force by the government. Invoking violent force to deprive a person of their volition is harm done far beyond some offensive speech. It is disproportionate and makes things worse. That's why things that are just speech are protected (from government use of force) in the USA by our constitution. Without this protection you end up with governments slowly drifting over to behave like the Saudis. It may take a while, but every nation state will get there without laws to prevent it.
fareesh 4y ago
It depends on the context. It is written in your comment and I would not want you to be arrested nor investigated. There is a war between Ukraine and Russia. I am sure there are a large number of angry Ukranians who have made similar unthinking cruel statements about Russians in exasperation and anger. I don't think they are a danger to society. There has been an ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine for many years. Some bystander may have been killed by the IDF and their families, in their grief, in a moment of unthinking weakness, said something bigoted. I don't think they are a danger to society. Incitement to violence is a crime and has some criteria to be satisfied before it becomes criminal. In those cases the words ought to be treated as instructions, and so the act of engaging in a conspiracy to harm someone is the crime, not the words themselves.

jstx1 4y ago

Yeah, and I'm on the same spectrum of athleticism as Usain Bolt. He's just a bit further along the spectrum. All you're saying is that there are different levels of authoritarianism (of course there are). There's still a huge difference in the levels of human rights and personal freedom in these two countries.

wcarss 4y ago

I am willing to say I see your point. There are similarities in the structure of the situation of facing consequences for speech. You say something, someone doesn't like it, you face a consequence. But there's a broad spectrum in the possibilities there. Who said something, who did they say it to, why did they say it, what did they mean by it, was someone injured or endangered by their speech -- if so, who? What is the relationship between these people in terms of the power they each have access to? What is the context? What were the consequences, who thought of them, how are they realized? These and more are all important questions to ask -- it is not so simple as, "consequences for speech is scary stuff". For example, a rich fella using paid ads to attack some poor person he specifically dislikes, spreading lies and using his means to ruin a life? There are laws to make that have consequences, and most people would agree they are just. A king imprisoning someone for life because they spoke a dissenting opinion? Most of us would feel that is unjust. The power relationship, the proportionality, the fairness -- they're all wrong. A university professor repeatedly telling "off-color jokes" along sexual or racial lines, after being asked to stop, and eventually being yelled at, possibly losing his position? Sure, that's consequences too. Is it really the same in any meaningful way? Is there some mechanism whereby the one becomes the other? I absolutely do not think so.

kmac_ 4y ago

Ah, symmetrism and whataboutism in one. No, KSA and UK are not equal.

fareesh 4y ago
The Treason Felony Act of 1848 makes it an offence to advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. Such advocation is punishable by up to life imprisonment under the Act. Though still in the statute book, the law is no longer enforced.
- kmac_ 4y ago
  Women's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion - comparing freedoms in UK and KSA and stating that they are comparable in any way is ridiculous.
  - fareesh 4y ago
    They are comparable exactly in the way that you can get arrested and put in jail for posting your opinion on social media if it goes against orthodoxy

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]