| HN Mirror

> Sadly, not just in Turkey but increasingly in what you'd consider developed "western" countries. This is concerning.

Bullsh*t alert! Name one western country that charges people for terrorism for criticizing Erdogan.

In England recently there was a teenager that quoted a snoop song on her instagram got threatened with an ankle bracelet and a $1000 fine for using a slur - post was not even directed at anyone in particular but rather in memory of her friend that died in a car crash.

Incidentally, Ahmadinejad is quoting 2pac on twitter: https://twitter.com/Ahmadinejad1956/status/10519371063927521...

Of course this is nothing new, the slippery slope in the UK started over a decade ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

  "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

  Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. ..was found guilty at Doncaster Magistrates' Court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs. As a consequence he lost his job as an administrative and financial supervisor at a car parts company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

baq 1522 days ago

UK had draconian libel laws used to silence inconvenient messages since for all intents and purposes forever, though.

    English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.

recuter 1521 days ago

Libel laws are at least about false statements. The difference is now you can still get in legal trouble for speaking the truth or making jokes, just as long as somebody was "offended".

if they quoted Erdogan, I might give it to you, but 2Pac is too far removed. not everyone has to know all the lyrics to every rap song to distinguish between participating in pop culture and bomb threats by the way

Two separate cases. The "bomb threat" I quoted here in full, it is right in front of your eyes. Make of it what you will of course.

You're welcome to explain to me how a teenager quoting snoop on her instagram is deserving of a court case whether somebody is familiar with the quote or not as opposed to Ahmadinejad quoting 2pac.

Or the Taliban being explicitly allowed to stay on the platform for that matter: https://www.mediaite.com/news/twitter-says-taliban-spokesman...

the case should have been dropped by the prosecutor without going to court, someone was incompetent

how do you think this is on par with Turkey consistently persecuting ---dissidents---?

recuter 1521 days ago

The legislators were the only ones incompetent - otherwise, sadly, no. This is their current system working as intended.

Scotland is a small place so can't find much for you other than this one local explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvmF1peteGE

You can now meme yourself to jail now. No need to even go so far as the head of state, any random individual can feign offense at you to land you in legal trouble.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/18/Reagans-jokes-draw-S...

jimbokun 1522 days ago

Reagan told a variant of this joke:

> 'It had to do with an American and a Russian arguing about their two countries,' Reagan said Monday, relating the story he told Gorbachev. 'And the American in the story said, 'I can walk into the Oval Office, I can pound the president's desk, and I can say, Mr. President, I don't like the way you're running our country.'

> 'And the Soviet citizen said, 'I can do that.' The American said, 'You can?' He says, 'Yes. I can go into the Kremlin to the general secretary's office, I can pound his desk and say, Mr. General Secretary, I don't like the way President Reagan's running his country.''

the only thing that is funny about that joke is that Reagan believed people can just come see the president whenever they want

vimy 1522 days ago

Not terrorism but not a good look for Germany.

> The Böhmermann affair (also known as Erdogate[1]) was a political affair following an experimental poem on German satirist Jan Böhmermann's satire show Neo Magazin Royale in late March 2016 that deliberately insulted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan using profane language. ... After the show was aired on German public television channel ZDFneo, the Turkish government released a verbal note demanding that the German government begin criminal prosecution of Böhmermann. German Chancellor Angela Merkel further escalated the situation by apologizing for Böhmermann's "intentionally hurtful" poem – later she called this "a mistake".[2] On 15 April Merkel announced in a press conference that the German government had approved Böhmermann's criminal prosecution, but would abolish the respective paragraph 103 of the German penal code before 2018. Intense criticism followed the Chancellor's decision, with speculation that she decided to allow the prosecution in order to protect Germany's refugee deal with Turkey.[3] The case was dropped in October 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Böhmermann_affair

they actually liberalized this outdated law, so they moved towards more freedom of speech, what's your point?

vincentmarle 1522 days ago

It's not being charged with terrorism, but you can go to jail in the Netherlands for insulting the King: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36799639

> The Netherlands' lese majeste law dates from 1881 and carries sentences of up to five years jail or a fine of 20,000 euros ($22,200; £16,700).

Denvercoder9 1522 days ago

That law has been abolished a couple of years ago.

vincentmarle 1521 days ago

> These laws have been abolished as of January 1, 2020. Insulting the King, the Royal Consort, the heir apparent or their consort, or the Regent, is now punishable on the same level as public officials in their official capacity, which adds one third to the maximum severity of the punishment for regular criminalisation of insulting of three months in prison (maximum) and/or a fine.

Not really abolished, just a lower punishment.

hmm, so actually the amount of free speech is INCREASING? interesting...

rileyphone 1522 days ago

No, but allows them to be subjected his goons' violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clashes_at_the_Turkish_Ambassa....

that's your army and police forces failing to protect your citizens from a turkish bodyguard on your own soil. nothing to do with persecuting Erdogan's critics

namecheapTA 1521 days ago

You can get locked up for very mild 'hate speech' in the UK. And I don't even mean hate speech, but posting "I hate these people and this is why", not "violent acts towards so and so!"

kubb 1521 days ago

Every single answer to this has moved the goalpost by the way. Unbelievable.

nailer 1522 days ago

A Scottish man in the UK was recently charged with saying the only good British soldier is a dead one.

what a legend, what did they charge him with?

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...

  Twitter user sentenced to 150 hours of community service in UK for posting ‘offensive’ tweet

OrlandoHakim 1522 days ago

In Canada, protestors had their bank accounts frozen for saying mean things about Trudeau. It's not exactly the same as your example but it does rhyme.

earth_walker 1522 days ago

No-one got their bank accounts frozen for "saying mean things".

People did get their bank accounts frozen for playing key roles in protests that shut down critical infrastructure for a prolonged period. Protests that were at least partially funded by foreign interests. Protests that cost Canadians millions of dollars and posed a safety risk for many people.

Whether you like JT or not, at least on the surface the government had justification to do <<something>> to stop the protests after so many weeks. Some governments would have gone in with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas. Ours elected to shut off the funding tap. And it worked.

Whether the emergencies act should have been used here is definitely up for debate. For what it's worth, an independent inquiry has been established to look into this. I for one hope they recognize the slippery slope that such a blunt tool represents and put in better controls and oversight.

tekknik 1521 days ago

> Some governments would have gone in with clubs, rubber bullets and teargas. Ours elected to shut off the funding tap. And it worked.

Sure, one can’t survive without money. And they shut that dissent down real quick. Like they controlled speech quite well. Now that they’ve found the button, I wonder how many times in the future they’ll push it. You’re basically bragging about your loss of dissent.

earth_walker 1521 days ago

I definitely do not think it's something to brag about - in the very next paragraph I point out that I believe this was too blunt an instrument. I do think it's worth contrasting with other recent responses to dissent, though, if anything to think about what and when would be appropriate.

Also, the government did not "shut down the dissent real quick". The protests went on for weeks without any reprisal. The shouts were shouted, the horns honked, the memes posted, the swastikas flown. The protesters got their fifteen minutes of fame and more. We all heard them speak, unfortunately it turned out they didn't have anything interesting to say.

tekknik 1520 days ago

You should reword some of your posts then, as it reads as though you’re gleeful.

So they let it take it’s natural course? Or did they force it to stop by using power wielded only by a gov?

cmonagle 1522 days ago

This is false. 200 bank accounts were frozen for organizing or significantly financing an illegal blockade of our capital.

Nobody had their bank account frozen for "saying mean things about Trudeau."

jaegerpicker 1522 days ago

It's not even REMOTELY close. They didn't have their bank accounts frozen for saying mean things, they were frozen because they were blocking roadways, damaging property, and making life in general more difficult for innocent citizens. You may not agree that they should have been frozen but it's absolutely not about saying mean things.

dwater 1522 days ago

That is incorrect. ~200 bank accounts were frozen for refusing to follow police orders to clear illegal blockades. Accounts were not frozen for speech, but for unlawful actions.

I am not Canadian and you're going to have to do your own fact checking but here is a post from an MP (whom I know nothing about but can assume you absolutely hate, try to put that aside): https://twitter.com/markstrahl/status/1495472037438967808

  Briane is a single mom from Chilliwack working a minimum wage job. She gave $50 to the convoy when it was 100% legal. She hasn’t participated in any other way. Her bank account has now been frozen.

I think regardless of your political affiliation freezing bank accounts and invoking emergency powers is controversial for obvious reasons. It is not a good precedent. Try to think ahead to a time when your political opponents are in power.

dghlsakjg 1522 days ago

There’s more (or less) to that story: https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/mark-strahl-briane-tr...

Sworn testimony in parliament makes it seem as if Mr Strahl’s story is either wholly or partially manufactured. No accounts were frozen for donating when the protest was still allowed.

Additionally there is no evidence that a person by the name of “Briane” lives in that town, and no one with that name was listed as a donor to the protest.

If you read more carefully (I can not stress enough that I am not Canadian, if you ask me the protests were dumb 'etc) that does not at all refute the point I am making.

One day Mark Strahl or somebody like him will be in power and the shoe will be on the other foot. If you start banning people you don't like (from twitter, bank accounts, whatever) left and right you will end up in a very dark place by setting that precedent.

zht 1522 days ago

this is a very bad faith representation of what happened.