undefined

points

[-]

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 stackbutterflow8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

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-jail...

by kyboren8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> 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?

by the_why_of_y4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is not what actually happened; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46431000

by soco8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

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?

by kyboren8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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-j... (p. 19)

by soco2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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...

by tick_tock_tick3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

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.

by soco2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

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.