[HN Gopher] Detective Who Arrested Man for Satirical Facebook Po...
___________________________________________________________________
Detective Who Arrested Man for Satirical Facebook Post Denied
Immunity by 5th C
Author : rntn
Score : 22 points
Date : 2023-08-29 20:52 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| His post looks like perfectly normal dumb internet shit you
| yourself would send in chat at 3:00 AM just a couple of years
| ago, if not today. Admit it.
| deodar wrote:
| The post was in poor taste. While it's obvious to most of us that
| it is humor, a mentally disturbed individual may take it
| seriously and decide to take the "law" in his own hands. It was
| especially immature with heightened worldwide tensions when
| everyone is on edge. He was 25 years old at that time, so he
| wasn't a kid either.
|
| I am finding it impossible to have any sympathy for Mr. Bailey
| here.
| [deleted]
| atlas_hugged wrote:
| Keep licking those boots
| chung8123 wrote:
| I personally hate responses like these to someone who has
| shown an opinion. It not only is a personal attack it is not
| constructive.
| davidwritesbugs wrote:
| Why does he need to be "constructive"? Because it's nice to
| be nice? Are we at a vicar's tea party?
|
| Calling the commenter a "boot licker" is an accurate
| critique of a pro-authority sycophant that has the virtue
| of brevity.
| deodar wrote:
| Hello, I'm not a sycophant, you can check my comment
| history.
|
| In this case I genuinely believe the post was borderline
| criminal and grossly irresponsible given the situation
| the world was in on March 20, 2020.
| alex_lav wrote:
| > In this case I genuinely believe the post was
| borderline criminal and grossly irresponsible given the
| situation the world was in on March 20, 2020.
|
| You could rewrite this as "Not criminal". So you agree,
| the arrest was illegal. Great!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why does he need to be "constructive"?_
|
| We're adults having a discussion. And it breaks _HN_
| Guidelines; "be nice" and "reply to the argument instead
| of calling names" [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| The defacto assumption that internet discourse is a
| "discussion" is pretty implicitly wrong or at least very
| misguided. Most forums are much more in the mode of loud
| public arguments, which is why we have votes.
|
| Even my own comment, by continuing this conversation
| serves in rhetorical, political, and philosophic
| capacities; many of which I don't intend but are implicit
| to how the medium is presented
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _assumption that internet discourse is a "discussion"
| is pretty implicitly wrong...many forums_
|
| We aren't on many forums. We're here. I wouldn't think
| twice about that comment on _e.g._ Reddit. But that's why
| I'm no longer there. The people who go into "loud public
| arguments" and win often had an adult discussion before.
| That an increasing fraction of world chooses to _only_
| engage in the former is creating problems and the
| necessity of moving important debates, including
| political debates, away from them.
| jagraff wrote:
| So, nobody can tell jokes if any person, no matter how mentally
| disturbed, might take it seriously?
| akomtu wrote:
| So was he arrested for what _others_ could 've done?
| aaplok wrote:
| Without going into the merits of this particular case, you
| can get charged for inciting to violence. Indeed that's being
| arrested for what _others_ could 've done. Specifically for
| what they could have done, but would not have done if you had
| not incited them to.
|
| For example, if a black man walks into a neighbourhood and
| someone claims to the neighbours that he is armed and on a
| killing spree, they are possibly putting that man's life in
| danger.
|
| Edit: actually a better example is swarming. It's seriously
| endangering someone's life, so someone doing it can get
| arrested for what _police_ could have done.
| courseofaction wrote:
| If the legal standard for speech is "cannot be misinterpreted
| by an insane person" then... uh... how do we proceed?
| alex_lav wrote:
| "This person said something I didn't like so they should be
| arrested", isn't really a valid or worthwhile opinion though. I
| don't like your post. Should you be arrested for it?
| cooldrcool2 wrote:
| "a mentally disturbed individual may take it seriously and
| decide to take the "law" in his own hands."
|
| Are we going to arrest the entirety of the GOP and Fox news
| next?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _finding it impossible to have any sympathy for Mr. Bailey_
|
| From being _arrested_?
|
| > _finding it impossible to have any sympathy for Mr. Bailey_
|
| Nobody asked for sympathy. Just whether you think the state has
| the right to arrest people who make jokes "in poor taste."
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| What a stupid post to make in a country with daily shootings.
|
| Joke or not, that post was incredibly bad and the author was
| rightfully arrested IMHO.
| courseofaction wrote:
| You seriously think that a brad pit zombie movie joke on
| facebook should be arrestable? By whom? On what grounds?
| alex_lav wrote:
| Just casually supporting open fascism now.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _that post was incredibly bad and the author was rightfully
| arrested_
|
| Would you say you believe free speech is a fundamental and
| important right?
| cooldrcool2 wrote:
| Your opinion sucks. People shouldn't be arrested for telling a
| joke that doesn't land well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-29 23:02 UTC)