11 ms·

You say "... the way they have literally arrested people for tweets", as if "tweets" is a special "thing" , but it's just communication. If something is illegal

by mort96 4y ago

You say "... the way they have literally arrested people for tweets", as if "tweets" is a special "thing" , but it's just communication. If something is illegal to say, it stands to reason that it would be illegal to say through the medium of a tweet. Is it less ridiculous to arrest people from what they write in a blog post or what they say on the street than what they say in a tweet? It seems like one should either take free speech absolutist approach and say speech should never be illegal, or accept that some speech is illegal which would obviously mean that it's illegal even on Twitter. But you're not the first person I've seen who seemingly find it extra ridiculous to react to something someone tweeted, as if publishing a tweet or a series of tweets is not an act of speech, and I don't understand it.

dfxm12 4y ago
The "special thing" in terms of authoritarianism was the arrest part, not the tweet part. Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK, as evidenced by anti-monarchist protesters getting arrested for expressing their views during Charles' proclamation.
- mort96 4y ago
  If I was talking about someone arrested for speaking against the monarchy on Twitter, I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet", maybe I would talk about someone being "arrested for tweeting critically about the monarchy" or just "arrested for being critical of the monarchy". If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.
  - karatinversion 4y ago
    An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted > the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
    - skorpeon87 4y ago
      That's certainly crass, but it shouldn't be illegal to say. If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.
  - robswc 4y ago
    >I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet" When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.
  - jolmg 4y ago
    > If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.
- slg 4y ago
  >Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here? And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.
  - robswc 4y ago
    >And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. Do you have a source for the ones you are referencing? I looked a few and they track things like "whether both men and women feel comfortable expressing themselves in public" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... And very few seem to give proper weight to objective measurements like laws and actual consequences of speech.
    - slg 4y ago
      There are plenty of them. You can start here[1] and do digging to find whichever one you think is most appropriate. It has been years since I have looked at any of these in depth, but the general consensus has often been that at our best the US is on par with countries like Australia and the UK and is occasionally a tier bellow those two. I'm not aware of any that have us a tier above either of them when it comes to general freedom metrics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
      - robswc 4y ago
        I looked at a random few of those and I honestly believe their categories are too broad/subjective. Funny enough, downloading an actual report (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021), the UK scores almost perfect (9.8) on "Freedom of internet Expression." The country where you can quite literally be arrested for making an offensive tweet (not a threat), scores just shy of 10/10 on internet freedom? Are the arrests the reason for losing 0.2? I would _love_ to see the methodology behind that score. Germany, the country where you can have your house literally raided over calling a politician a "dick", scores 9.36 "Internet Expression." 9's are some of the highest scores you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... The institutions that put these together have 0 skin in the game. I have tried to find how they create their "indicators" but haven't found anything. I honestly just cannot take these reports seriously unless someone has an answer for how countries that can arrest citizens over offensive tweets could score so high on this particular metric.
clownshoez 4y ago
Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  That makes a lot of sense if you think that only direct calls for violence result in violence. There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. It's, however, a lot easier to relabel it as something else than accept that speech falling outside "inciting physical violence" could be the cause.
  - SlickNixon 4y ago
    >There's a slow burning genocide afoot Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
    - mort96 4y ago
      Do you realize what you just did? You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action". In a conversation where a "call to violent action" is used to mean something which is worthy of arrest. Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
      - SlickNixon 4y ago
        >You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action" I take it you favor a more passive approach. >Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous. This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats. I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.
Manuel_D 4y ago
You're right it's not the media that matters, it's the message. But the reality is that people are being arrested for unambiguously political messages [1]. Nobody would care about people being arrested for making credible death threats over twitter, versus over snail mail. When people say "arrested for tweets" they're referring to stuff like the above link. 1. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/august/army-vet-allegedly-arrested-for-causing-anxiety-over-gay-pride-tweet-and-police-commissioners-reaction-is-turning-heads https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/august/army-vet-alle...
renonn 4y ago
“you're not the first person I've seen who seemingly find it extra ridiculous to react to something someone tweeted, as if publishing a tweet or a series of tweets is not an act of speech, and I don't understand it.” because people say stuff online they would never say in real life. i hope that cleared things up for you
- dylan604 4y ago
  as if that makes it hunky-dory. hope that clears things up for you as well.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Rather as if it makes the reality (and therefore the norms, and therefore any rules which aim to be descriptive rather than prescriptive) of online speech different from in-person speech.
rayiner 4y ago
At least in the U.S., nothing is "illegal to say." Rather, some illegal act defined by particular circumstances may be performed through speech. For example, "true threats" are illegal and not protected speech. But tweets have characteristics that make them less likely to be true threats. The famous example of a true threat is a Vietnam War protestor who shouted "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-united-states https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-uni.... That was held to be a political statement. The same speech in a tweet has the same hallmarks of a political statement--made in public, physically distanced from the target of the speech. By contrast, if a protestor said that while right outside the President's office, that could be a true threat. The medium and surrounding circumstances matters, not merely what is said.
SoftTalker 4y ago
Many people think of tweets as offhand, throwaway remarks that are not well considered and often not especially serious. People tend to get ranty and emotional on twitter much more than in real life. People tweet when they are drunk or high, often to their later embarrassment. Anything I hear about what anyone said on twitter immediately has reduced weight in my mind, just because it's twitter.

by mort96 4y ago

dfxm12 4y ago

The "special thing" in terms of authoritarianism was the arrest part, not the tweet part. Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK, as evidenced by anti-monarchist protesters getting arrested for expressing their views during Charles' proclamation.

mort96 4y ago
If I was talking about someone arrested for speaking against the monarchy on Twitter, I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet", maybe I would talk about someone being "arrested for tweeting critically about the monarchy" or just "arrested for being critical of the monarchy". If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. As it is, we can't judge for ourselves whether the arrest is warranted or not, which is kind of a big deal when the arrest is used by robswc to illustrate how the UK is approaching authoritarianism.
- karatinversion 4y ago
  An example discussed earlier this year on HN: Joseph Kelly tweeted > the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella, buuuuurn in relation to Tom Moore’s death. He deleted the tweet after 20 minutes. He was convicted of grossly offensive communications under the Communications Act, and was sentenced to 18 month’s probation and 150 hours of unpaid work.
  - skorpeon87 4y ago
    That's certainly crass, but it shouldn't be illegal to say. If people don't want to support their country's military and servicemen, that should be their business; it's a legitimate political position to take. Not least because all British soldiers are volunteers, and most of what British soldiers have been doing for the past generation is tagging along with American imperial military adventurism.
- robswc 4y ago
  >I wouldn't talk about that as someone being "arrested for a tweet" When the reasons are "being critical of the monarchy" or "causing anxiety" I think "for a tweet" can only make things look less ridiculous, lol.
- jolmg 4y ago
  > If one thinks the speech in question should be legal, you'd think one would mention the kind of speech, not just the medium. Fundamentally, all speech should be legal, barring very special circumstances. That's freedom of expression.
slg 4y ago
>Arresting for (offline) communication is not unheard of in the UK This is not unheard of in the US either. So what is the distinction being made here? And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. I don't know that there is much of an argument that their stricter speech restrictions have them any closer to authoritarianism than the various problems in the US have us.
- robswc 4y ago
  >And for the record the UK and Australia are generally higher up on the various freedom lists that rank countries. Do you have a source for the ones you are referencing? I looked a few and they track things like "whether both men and women feel comfortable expressing themselves in public" https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries... And very few seem to give proper weight to objective measurements like laws and actual consequences of speech.
  - slg 4y ago
    There are plenty of them. You can start here[1] and do digging to find whichever one you think is most appropriate. It has been years since I have looked at any of these in depth, but the general consensus has often been that at our best the US is on par with countries like Australia and the UK and is occasionally a tier bellow those two. I'm not aware of any that have us a tier above either of them when it comes to general freedom metrics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
    - robswc 4y ago
      I looked at a random few of those and I honestly believe their categories are too broad/subjective. Funny enough, downloading an actual report (https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021 https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2021), the UK scores almost perfect (9.8) on "Freedom of internet Expression." The country where you can quite literally be arrested for making an offensive tweet (not a threat), scores just shy of 10/10 on internet freedom? Are the arrests the reason for losing 0.2? I would _love_ to see the methodology behind that score. Germany, the country where you can have your house literally raided over calling a politician a "dick", scores 9.36 "Internet Expression." 9's are some of the highest scores you can get. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... The institutions that put these together have 0 skin in the game. I have tried to find how they create their "indicators" but haven't found anything. I honestly just cannot take these reports seriously unless someone has an answer for how countries that can arrest citizens over offensive tweets could score so high on this particular metric.

clownshoez 4y ago

Respectfully, it is my opinion that arresting anyone who says something, in real life, on a blog or whispering to themselves, that is not a direct threat or inciting physical violence is wrong.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
That makes a lot of sense if you think that only direct calls for violence result in violence. There's a slow burning genocide afoot that's taking place though "reasoned debates," that serves as a counterexample. It's, however, a lot easier to relabel it as something else than accept that speech falling outside "inciting physical violence" could be the cause.
- SlickNixon 4y ago
  >There's a slow burning genocide afoot Sounds like you're inciting a call to violent action.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Do you realize what you just did? You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action". In a conversation where a "call to violent action" is used to mean something which is worthy of arrest. Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous.
    - SlickNixon 4y ago
      >You equate pointing out the existence of a genocide with a "call to violent action" I take it you favor a more passive approach. >Your comment, in the context of this conversation, argues in favour of arresting anyone who points out that a genocide is taking place. That is extremely dangerous. This is exactly what my comment was arguing. I wrote that comment not as a reflection of my personal views, but to highlight the consequences of prosecuting individuals for statements which aren't direct threats. I don't believe arresting and prosecuting individuals for making such statements is justified. I agree that the context of this conversation argues in favor of arresting anyone who points out that genocide is taking place, and I agree that accepting it as a precedent is extremely dangerous. You've elucidated my reasoning on the subject perfectly.

Manuel_D 4y ago

You're right it's not the media that matters, it's the message. But the reality is that people are being arrested for unambiguously political messages [1]. Nobody would care about people being arrested for making credible death threats over twitter, versus over snail mail. When people say "arrested for tweets" they're referring to stuff like the above link. 1. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/august/army-vet-allegedly-arrested-for-causing-anxiety-over-gay-pride-tweet-and-police-commissioners-reaction-is-turning-heads https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2022/august/army-vet-alle...

renonn 4y ago

“you're not the first person I've seen who seemingly find it extra ridiculous to react to something someone tweeted, as if publishing a tweet or a series of tweets is not an act of speech, and I don't understand it.” because people say stuff online they would never say in real life. i hope that cleared things up for you

dylan604 4y ago
as if that makes it hunky-dory. hope that clears things up for you as well.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Rather as if it makes the reality (and therefore the norms, and therefore any rules which aim to be descriptive rather than prescriptive) of online speech different from in-person speech.

rayiner 4y ago

At least in the U.S., nothing is "illegal to say." Rather, some illegal act defined by particular circumstances may be performed through speech. For example, "true threats" are illegal and not protected speech. But tweets have characteristics that make them less likely to be true threats. The famous example of a true threat is a Vietnam War protestor who shouted "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-united-states https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/707/watts-v-uni.... That was held to be a political statement. The same speech in a tweet has the same hallmarks of a political statement--made in public, physically distanced from the target of the speech. By contrast, if a protestor said that while right outside the President's office, that could be a true threat. The medium and surrounding circumstances matters, not merely what is said.

SoftTalker 4y ago

Many people think of tweets as offhand, throwaway remarks that are not well considered and often not especially serious. People tend to get ranty and emotional on twitter much more than in real life. People tweet when they are drunk or high, often to their later embarrassment. Anything I hear about what anyone said on twitter immediately has reduced weight in my mind, just because it's twitter.