4 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-court-jails-man-racist-tweets-seen-o

by kyboren 8mo ago

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-court-jails-man-racist-tweets-seen-only-33-times-sparking-free-speech-debate-1763864 https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-court-jails-man-racist-tweets-s... https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-over-online-insult/a-70793557 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-... https://reclaimthenet.org/germany-online-speech-raids-political-insults-law-enforcement https://reclaimthenet.org/germany-online-speech-raids-politi... I'm sure you can find more; those were just the lowest hanging fruit in 2 minutes of searching.

soco 8mo ago
So you folks think just because it's internet we should be able to insult and call for racial action? Maybe you think in real life that should be acceptable too?
- kyboren 8mo ago
  I support free speech through any media, including all noncommercial speech not including: - defamation (with extra lenience for speech about public figures) - evidence of child sex abuse - incitement to imminent lawless action likely to cause disorder Even those few exceptions are dangerous to liberty. Certainly anything else is too easily twisted into political censorship. For example, under the guise of fighting "hate speech", the EU has already used the DSA to censor disfavored political speech like, "I think that LGBTI ideology, gender ideology, transgender ideology are a big threat to Slovakia, just like corruption"[0]. And yes, people obviously have the right to insult their politicians. It's honestly perplexing to encounter someone defending an early morning house raid because the guy called a politician a "professional moron". Are you actually Robert Habeck?? [0]: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2026-02/THE-FOREIGN-CENSORSHIP-THREAT-PART-II-2-3-26.pdf https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... (p. 19)
  - soco 8mo ago
    Even here on HN insulting other posters gets you banned. Same in many US media. There's quite a discrepancy between what people claim and the reality on the field, why you think? Yes I'm aware I'm shifting focus from Europe to the US, but you know, who should cast the first stone...
    - johnsimer 8mo ago
      Private companies should have the freedom to ban/censor whatever content on their platforms they want. I’d prefer if they don’t, but we shouldn’t force governments to prevent companies from creating their own rules about how people can use their own software Governments however should not interfere with citizen’s freedom of speech - there should be no fines/arrests for insulting politicians. Otherwise those governments are actually authoritarian and repressive.
      - inigyou 8mo ago
        Allowing private companies to do anything they want, when there are only a few large private companies, makes them a shadow state. Europe is much more willing to restrict companies from becoming shadow states. If they make a law that says bank transfers must be used for large payments (or if that becomes de facto true) they also make a law that says banks must give accounts to everyone.
  - inigyou 8mo ago
    Replace the words "LGBT", "gender", and "transgender" with "Jewish", "Christian" and "white" to see why that statement is hate speech.
- tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
  It's 100% acceptable in real life that the whole concept of free speech. Seriously you can say shit like that all day every day in the USA and the cops probably won't even bother you.
  - soco 8mo ago
    Probably here lies the entire chasm between the US and Europe. In Europe insulting people on the street is not considered acceptable, also spreading neonazi propaganda and everything - ACLU or not (btw ACLU is also an US thing). So the US will jump at the idea of containing someone who publishes threats and insults, while the European will, well, try to contain them. I'm an European and call that respect for your co citizens, something not understandable for the US. Maybe that's also why social-democracy is here so well established, because we believe in a community, while the US advocates the person against everybody else. Just thinking loud.
    - tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
      The issue is European will with a straight face say they have freedom of speech.
      - inigyou 8mo ago
        So will Americans, and North Koreans. What is freedom of speech? Is it the right to say absolutely anything, anywhere, any time, because you don't have that in America.
stackbutterflow 8mo ago
First link > The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire. Saying she was put in jail for social media posts is like saying a murderer was jailed for breathing air. Meanwhile a US citizen was jailed for a meme quoting Trump after Kirk death. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jailed-over-charlie-kirk-meme https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jail...
- kyboren 8mo ago
  > Meanwhile a US citizen was jailed for a meme quoting Trump after Kirk death. And that was wrong, too. Also newsworthy because it is so unusual. > First link I think it's probably legal under US jurisprudence, but fine, you can have that one. How about the guy who got raided for calling Robert Habeck a "professional moron"? Or the 170 other people raided in Germany for their online speech?
  - the_why_of_y 8mo ago
    This is not what actually happened; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46431000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46431000
Peanuts99 8mo ago
Context on the first one, she wasn't jailed for the post itself. She pleaded guilty (against her own legal advice apparently) to the crime of inciting racial hatred which carries a prison sentence. There were other people also arrested at the time who did not plead guilty to this and were not charged. Also she did call for a hotel filled with migrants to be set on fire while people were actively trying to do just that.

by kyboren 8mo ago

soco 8mo ago

So you folks think just because it's internet we should be able to insult and call for racial action? Maybe you think in real life that should be acceptable too?

kyboren 8mo ago
I support free speech through any media, including all noncommercial speech not including: - defamation (with extra lenience for speech about public figures) - evidence of child sex abuse - incitement to imminent lawless action likely to cause disorder Even those few exceptions are dangerous to liberty. Certainly anything else is too easily twisted into political censorship. For example, under the guise of fighting "hate speech", the EU has already used the DSA to censor disfavored political speech like, "I think that LGBTI ideology, gender ideology, transgender ideology are a big threat to Slovakia, just like corruption"[0]. And yes, people obviously have the right to insult their politicians. It's honestly perplexing to encounter someone defending an early morning house raid because the guy called a politician a "professional moron". Are you actually Robert Habeck?? [0]: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2026-02/THE-FOREIGN-CENSORSHIP-THREAT-PART-II-2-3-26.pdf https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... (p. 19)
- soco 8mo ago
  Even here on HN insulting other posters gets you banned. Same in many US media. There's quite a discrepancy between what people claim and the reality on the field, why you think? Yes I'm aware I'm shifting focus from Europe to the US, but you know, who should cast the first stone...
  - johnsimer 8mo ago
    Private companies should have the freedom to ban/censor whatever content on their platforms they want. I’d prefer if they don’t, but we shouldn’t force governments to prevent companies from creating their own rules about how people can use their own software Governments however should not interfere with citizen’s freedom of speech - there should be no fines/arrests for insulting politicians. Otherwise those governments are actually authoritarian and repressive.
    - inigyou 8mo ago
      Allowing private companies to do anything they want, when there are only a few large private companies, makes them a shadow state. Europe is much more willing to restrict companies from becoming shadow states. If they make a law that says bank transfers must be used for large payments (or if that becomes de facto true) they also make a law that says banks must give accounts to everyone.
- inigyou 8mo ago
  Replace the words "LGBT", "gender", and "transgender" with "Jewish", "Christian" and "white" to see why that statement is hate speech.
tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
It's 100% acceptable in real life that the whole concept of free speech. Seriously you can say shit like that all day every day in the USA and the cops probably won't even bother you.
- soco 8mo ago
  Probably here lies the entire chasm between the US and Europe. In Europe insulting people on the street is not considered acceptable, also spreading neonazi propaganda and everything - ACLU or not (btw ACLU is also an US thing). So the US will jump at the idea of containing someone who publishes threats and insults, while the European will, well, try to contain them. I'm an European and call that respect for your co citizens, something not understandable for the US. Maybe that's also why social-democracy is here so well established, because we believe in a community, while the US advocates the person against everybody else. Just thinking loud.
  - tick_tock_tick 8mo ago
    The issue is European will with a straight face say they have freedom of speech.
    - inigyou 8mo ago
      So will Americans, and North Koreans. What is freedom of speech? Is it the right to say absolutely anything, anywhere, any time, because you don't have that in America.

stackbutterflow 8mo ago

First link > The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire. Saying she was put in jail for social media posts is like saying a murderer was jailed for breathing air. Meanwhile a US citizen was jailed for a meme quoting Trump after Kirk death. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jailed-over-charlie-kirk-meme https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jail...

kyboren 8mo ago
> Meanwhile a US citizen was jailed for a meme quoting Trump after Kirk death. And that was wrong, too. Also newsworthy because it is so unusual. > First link I think it's probably legal under US jurisprudence, but fine, you can have that one. How about the guy who got raided for calling Robert Habeck a "professional moron"? Or the 170 other people raided in Germany for their online speech?
- the_why_of_y 8mo ago
  This is not what actually happened; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46431000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46431000

Peanuts99 8mo ago

Context on the first one, she wasn't jailed for the post itself. She pleaded guilty (against her own legal advice apparently) to the crime of inciting racial hatred which carries a prison sentence. There were other people also arrested at the time who did not plead guilty to this and were not charged. Also she did call for a hotel filled with migrants to be set on fire while people were actively trying to do just that.