3 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMzFDpfDwc https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2024/8/men-jailed-after-posting-racist-messages-on-social-media/ https://www.cheshire.police.uk/news/cheshire/news/articles/2... These things seem abhorrent to Americans who have nearly unlimited free speech protection.

boesboes 2y ago
Lol, nearly unlimited my ass. Not anymore anyway, under the new regime
dudefeliciano 2y ago
I mean that glasgow guy was sentenced 800 pounds, went viral from those videos, and now has a huge youtube following...seems like a great deal About those second 2 guys, what's that phrase that americans like so much? Fuck around and find out. I think the US, even in their nearly unlimited free speech, has similar laws in regards to inciting violence. Defamation, slander, fighting words, are also not protected by free speech. So really, the only difference between the US and UK is that the UK does not allow hate speech. Germany has some more regulations, but the real significant difference seems to be about not being allowed to display nazi symbols or denying the holocaust.
sgt101 2y ago
The two UK cases: - Nazi pug man got a fine of £800; no jail. - Cheshire people; in the context of rioting and the consequences of rioting. For the record I think (personal view only) that the Nazi pug man should never have been prosecuted, I personally find it grossly offensive but I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them. The Cheshire thing I find much more serious, it seemed to me that this was about people calling for other people to get hurt and killed. Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA? Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control?
- Clubber 2y ago
  >Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control? Why do people constantly and intentionally misconstrue arguments? It's so obnoxious and intellectually dishonest. I didn't say it was absolute. It's like people can't even have a conversation anymore without dealing with this. >I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them. Oh, so you're a Nazi sympathizer? See how annoying that is when people intentionally misconstrue arguments? I know it's a habit these days with the news and I don't mean to jump on your shit, it's quite common; but it's bleeding into person to person conversation and you just can't have any meaningful conversation this way.
  - dudefeliciano 2y ago
    I did not see that as an attack towards you or miscontruing any argument you made, rather putting things in perspective for people who may believe JD Vance & co when he talks about freedom of speech. I also did not see your statement "seems abhorrent to americans" as a value judgement you hold in regards to european freedom of expression laws.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      >> These things seem abhorrent to Americans who have nearly unlimited free speech protection. > Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control? I said it was near unlimited protection and he claimed I said it was absolute so he could make a counter argument. He intentionally misconstrued my argument to make a counter argument. What am I supposed to do, defend and argument I didn't make? It kills any conversation or sharing of ideas. It's annoying. The news does this all the time.
- macNchz 2y ago
  > Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA? In cases like that, courts in the US make the determination as to whether the speech is protected based on whether it may cause “imminent lawless action”—hard to say in the Cheshire case without seeing what they were actually posting, but encouraging people to start violent riots would not be protected in the US either. There are plenty of cases of people getting arrested in the US for Facebook posts inciting violence.
card_zero 2y ago
Hmm, I found this: https://web.archive.org/web/20070315091415/http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070315091415/http://news.com.c... "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Drawn up in 2005, passed by Bush in 2006.
foldr 2y ago
You can also be arrested and jailed for social media posts in the US if those posts break the law. For example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer... This “arrested for a meme” meme is so dumb. What’s important is the content of the meme, not the fact that it’s a meme.

boesboes 2y ago

Lol, nearly unlimited my ass. Not anymore anyway, under the new regime

dudefeliciano 2y ago

I mean that glasgow guy was sentenced 800 pounds, went viral from those videos, and now has a huge youtube following...seems like a great deal About those second 2 guys, what's that phrase that americans like so much? Fuck around and find out. I think the US, even in their nearly unlimited free speech, has similar laws in regards to inciting violence. Defamation, slander, fighting words, are also not protected by free speech. So really, the only difference between the US and UK is that the UK does not allow hate speech. Germany has some more regulations, but the real significant difference seems to be about not being allowed to display nazi symbols or denying the holocaust.

sgt101 2y ago

The two UK cases: - Nazi pug man got a fine of £800; no jail. - Cheshire people; in the context of rioting and the consequences of rioting. For the record I think (personal view only) that the Nazi pug man should never have been prosecuted, I personally find it grossly offensive but I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them. The Cheshire thing I find much more serious, it seemed to me that this was about people calling for other people to get hurt and killed. Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA? Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control?

Clubber 2y ago
>Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control? Why do people constantly and intentionally misconstrue arguments? It's so obnoxious and intellectually dishonest. I didn't say it was absolute. It's like people can't even have a conversation anymore without dealing with this. >I think that the harm of stopping people saying these things is greater than the harm of the idiot saying them. Oh, so you're a Nazi sympathizer? See how annoying that is when people intentionally misconstrue arguments? I know it's a habit these days with the news and I don't mean to jump on your shit, it's quite common; but it's bleeding into person to person conversation and you just can't have any meaningful conversation this way.
- dudefeliciano 2y ago
  I did not see that as an attack towards you or miscontruing any argument you made, rather putting things in perspective for people who may believe JD Vance & co when he talks about freedom of speech. I also did not see your statement "seems abhorrent to americans" as a value judgement you hold in regards to european freedom of expression laws.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >> These things seem abhorrent to Americans who have nearly unlimited free speech protection. > Also, what about folks like Snowdon and Assange? I mean if freedom of speech is absolute in the USA why can't they just tell the CCP about USA nuclear control? I said it was near unlimited protection and he claimed I said it was absolute so he could make a counter argument. He intentionally misconstrued my argument to make a counter argument. What am I supposed to do, defend and argument I didn't make? It kills any conversation or sharing of ideas. It's annoying. The news does this all the time.
macNchz 2y ago
> Is it really the case that it's ok to threaten people or to call for violence against a community in the USA? In cases like that, courts in the US make the determination as to whether the speech is protected based on whether it may cause “imminent lawless action”—hard to say in the Cheshire case without seeing what they were actually posting, but encouraging people to start violent riots would not be protected in the US either. There are plenty of cases of people getting arrested in the US for Facebook posts inciting violence.

card_zero 2y ago

Hmm, I found this: https://web.archive.org/web/20070315091415/http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070315091415/http://news.com.c... "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Drawn up in 2005, passed by Bush in 2006.

foldr 2y ago

You can also be arrested and jailed for social media posts in the US if those posts break the law. For example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer... This “arrested for a meme” meme is so dumb. What’s important is the content of the meme, not the fact that it’s a meme.