Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JumpCrisscross 601 days ago
“Robinson served four prison terms between 2005 and 2019. In 2013, he illegally entered the United States using a friend's passport. In 2018, he violated a court order by publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering court...

In 2021, he was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs. In 2021, he was subjected to a five-year stalking prevention order for harassing journalist Lizzie Dearden and her partner.”

Wow. Makes his alleged crime in this case, violation of an injunction, far more believable.
1 comments
ryandrake 601 days ago
I guess if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find.
link
JumpCrisscross 601 days ago
> if a government wants to manufacture consent/support for a terrible law, they need to enforce it against the least sympathetic defendants they can find

Not everything is a conspiracy. He libelled a person. A court said stop libelling. He violated that injunction.

The takeaway from this guy’s history is he’s a liar and serial lawbreaker. The outrage in this story is reliant on his account. As a result, this is a nothingburger without more information, in the same category as sovereign citizens claiming repression for drunk driving without a license.

link
eschaton 601 days ago
His argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable. (Unlike virtually every other argument he has ever made, whether in court or out of it; he’s an idiot and a racist.)

If his planned defense against his other criminal charges was documented on the phone, that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess. And that’s not even considering his inherent right to privacy.

link
JumpCrisscross 601 days ago
> argument against being charged with a crime for refusing to provide access to his phone contents is actually reasonable

Sure. We have no evidence that is (a) true or (b) what happened.

> that would make it information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess

It might make some of it privileged. That's miles apart from "information the state cannot legitimately seek or possess."

link