Death sentence over FaceBook posts (Reuters)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

The UK posts in question generally advocated for physical violence against groups of people or individuals. While those posts would not trigger police investigation in the US (the calls for violence were either said tongue-in-cheek or too generalized), the UK has always had more restrictive speech laws than the US. The speech would be investigated and prosecuted ex-poste after an incident of violence directly tied to the speech, whereas in the UK the speech is investigated and prosecuted ex-ante. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct approach in a civilized society.

Don't believe the half-truths you read on social media. Go to the source materials - i.e., the language of the posts.

DP.

Well the uk situation is different. It deserves its own S/O thread.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't Tunisia where the Arab Spring started?
Saus they haven't even applied the death penalty in 3 decades, so wtf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t give this administration any ideas.

They are already doing this but you do not have to break a law- Chicago woman gone down by ICE, being in a boat, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Tunisia where the Arab Spring started?
Saus they haven't even applied the death penalty in 3 decades, so wtf?

No death-penalty in over 30 years, but now:

- criticizing the government = death sentence??!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realize this is a different culture, but still, this is outrageous!

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/tunisian-sentenced-death-facebook-posts-criticising-president-2025-10-03/

If trump hears about this he will try to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Mark Zuckerberg needs to step in here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

What about my comment would lead you to assume I'm okay with criminalizing speech? I don't think people should go to jail for saying racist crap on Facebook. I think they should get called an a$$hole to their face, and I won't talk when they get their a$$ kicked. But I do not support the State executing or failing people for speech. So stop it with your gotcha BS. This is wrong and you know it.

Let me ask you something. If someone made a really racist tweet, do you think that is a crime, eg hate speech? It seems democrats commonly believe offensive speech ia criminal and that the government has an obligation to protect people from offensive or "harmful" speech (like vaccine skepticism, comments critical of transgender ideology etc). Democrats are completely okay with, for example, DHS giving guidelines to social media platforms about what speech should and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Or am I completely wrong here and you guys think conservative speech should be allowed on the internet now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

The UK posts in question generally advocated for physical violence against groups of people or individuals. While those posts would not trigger police investigation in the US (the calls for violence were either said tongue-in-cheek or too generalized), the UK has always had more restrictive speech laws than the US. The speech would be investigated and prosecuted ex-poste after an incident of violence directly tied to the speech, whereas in the UK the speech is investigated and prosecuted ex-ante. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct approach in a civilized society.

Don't believe the half-truths you read on social media. Go to the source materials - i.e., the language of the posts.

In the most famous case, a single mom in the UK went to prison after posting that hotels housing immigrants should be set on fire. Here in the US, people actually do set buildings on fire and democrats generally regard this as a legitimate and righteous form of protest as long as its for a cause like BLM. As the famous saying goes, "firey but mostly peaceful."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

The UK posts in question generally advocated for physical violence against groups of people or individuals. While those posts would not trigger police investigation in the US (the calls for violence were either said tongue-in-cheek or too generalized), the UK has always had more restrictive speech laws than the US. The speech would be investigated and prosecuted ex-poste after an incident of violence directly tied to the speech, whereas in the UK the speech is investigated and prosecuted ex-ante. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct approach in a civilized society.

Don't believe the half-truths you read on social media. Go to the source materials - i.e., the language of the posts.

In the most famous case, a single mom in the UK went to prison after posting that hotels housing immigrants should be set on fire. Here in the US, people actually do set buildings on fire and democrats generally regard this as a legitimate and righteous form of protest as long as its for a cause like BLM. As the famous saying goes, "firey but mostly peaceful."

You mean like Jan6 and the Epstein billionaires? Didn’t you republicans pay all the Jan6’ers and give them high paying no show jobs? Seems you are trying to distort reality. The only ones who get away with crimes in the US like fire bombing is the right. Oklahoma City was your guys right?

Now Trump and the Republicans are arresting anyone who protest Israel or talks bad about Trump. Scary times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

What about my comment would lead you to assume I'm okay with criminalizing speech? I don't think people should go to jail for saying racist crap on Facebook. I think they should get called an a$$hole to their face, and I won't talk when they get their a$$ kicked. But I do not support the State executing or failing people for speech. So stop it with your gotcha BS. This is wrong and you know it.

Let me ask you something. If someone made a really racist tweet, do you think that is a crime, eg hate speech? It seems democrats commonly believe offensive speech ia criminal and that the government has an obligation to protect people from offensive or "harmful" speech (like vaccine skepticism, comments critical of transgender ideology etc). Democrats are completely okay with, for example, DHS giving guidelines to social media platforms about what speech should and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Or am I completely wrong here and you guys think conservative speech should be allowed on the internet now?

Hate speech is only criminalized in the U.S. when it is an enhancement to another crime (ie., physical violence, arson)

You can state all the hate speech you want and the government can't punish you. You might be deplatformed by a private company, but you do not have a 1st Amendment right on a privately owned social media app.

The issue I'm finding in many of these UK cases is that they combine hate/"Un-Woke" speech with a call for violence. The UK authorities proactively act when it comes to calls for violence, even if its arguably written as a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

This is an extremely dumb assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

The UK posts in question generally advocated for physical violence against groups of people or individuals. While those posts would not trigger police investigation in the US (the calls for violence were either said tongue-in-cheek or too generalized), the UK has always had more restrictive speech laws than the US. The speech would be investigated and prosecuted ex-poste after an incident of violence directly tied to the speech, whereas in the UK the speech is investigated and prosecuted ex-ante. Reasonable people can disagree on the correct approach in a civilized society.

Don't believe the half-truths you read on social media. Go to the source materials - i.e., the language of the posts.

In the most famous case, a single mom in the UK went to prison after posting that hotels housing immigrants should be set on fire. Here in the US, people actually do set buildings on fire and democrats generally regard this as a legitimate and righteous form of protest as long as its for a cause like BLM. As the famous saying goes, "firey but mostly peaceful."

You mean like Jan6 and the Epstein billionaires? Didn’t you republicans pay all the Jan6’ers and give them high paying no show jobs? Seems you are trying to distort reality. The only ones who get away with crimes in the US like fire bombing is the right. Oklahoma City was your guys right?

Now Trump and the Republicans are arresting anyone who protest Israel or talks bad about Trump. Scary times.

Let's use numbers to put things into perspective. FBI estimates that 2000-2500 people entered the Capital building for the J6 riot. Of those, more than 1500 faced prosecution (so well over half of the participants).

For the BLM protests, it's a bit murkier since the majority of participants presumably were not engaging in criminal activity. Of the estimated 26M participants, 300 were prosecuted for crimes.

Now let's look at financial damages. Court filings show that the damage to the Capitol was around $1.5M (but the investigations, prosecutions, etc pushed taxpayer expense up to around $3B). For the 2020 BLM riots, while numbers are again kind of complicated by all the variables, it's generally estimated that the damage to property was around $2B. The Minneapolis downtown area alone suffered $500M in damages.

So to recap-
J6 = 1.5M in damage = ~1500 people prosecuted
BLM = 2B in damage = 300 people prosecuted.

So I am not sure what you want. Literally over half the J6 participants were arrested, largely on trespassing charges and not on any charges related to violence. By contrast, the state-sanctioned BLM riots that saw countless businesses burnt to the ground and insurance companies run out of business resulted in 300 arrests. Take the W, bro. They covered for the BLM folks and threw the book at the J6 people. And yet you are still complaining like this wasnt a huge W for the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

What about my comment would lead you to assume I'm okay with criminalizing speech? I don't think people should go to jail for saying racist crap on Facebook. I think they should get called an a$$hole to their face, and I won't talk when they get their a$$ kicked. But I do not support the State executing or failing people for speech. So stop it with your gotcha BS. This is wrong and you know it.

Let me ask you something. If someone made a really racist tweet, do you think that is a crime, eg hate speech? It seems democrats commonly believe offensive speech ia criminal and that the government has an obligation to protect people from offensive or "harmful" speech (like vaccine skepticism, comments critical of transgender ideology etc). Democrats are completely okay with, for example, DHS giving guidelines to social media platforms about what speech should and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Or am I completely wrong here and you guys think conservative speech should be allowed on the internet now?

Hate speech is only criminalized in the U.S. when it is an enhancement to another crime (ie., physical violence, arson)

You can state all the hate speech you want and the government can't punish you. You might be deplatformed by a private company, but you do not have a 1st Amendment right on a privately owned social media app.

The issue I'm finding in many of these UK cases is that they combine hate/"Un-Woke" speech with a call for violence. The UK authorities proactively act when it comes to calls for violence, even if its arguably written as a joke.

So do you think that people in America should be arrested if they tweet that people should set fire to hotels that house immigrants? How about if people say that people should be shot for saying racist or fascist things? Under what circumstances is it okay to arrest people in America for antisocial speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

What about my comment would lead you to assume I'm okay with criminalizing speech? I don't think people should go to jail for saying racist crap on Facebook. I think they should get called an a$$hole to their face, and I won't talk when they get their a$$ kicked. But I do not support the State executing or failing people for speech. So stop it with your gotcha BS. This is wrong and you know it.

Let me ask you something. If someone made a really racist tweet, do you think that is a crime, eg hate speech? It seems democrats commonly believe offensive speech ia criminal and that the government has an obligation to protect people from offensive or "harmful" speech (like vaccine skepticism, comments critical of transgender ideology etc). Democrats are completely okay with, for example, DHS giving guidelines to social media platforms about what speech should and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Or am I completely wrong here and you guys think conservative speech should be allowed on the internet now?

You're grouping a lot of different things that to me and many democrats would be handled differently. I believe in absolute freedom as far as your freedoms don't infringe on someone else's freedoms. So being critical of "transgender ideology" is protected, albeit bigoted speech. You shouldn't be jailed, but are not protected from social consequences. Inciting violence against transgender people is not protected speech, and could get you in trouble with the law depending on the severity.

Spreading misinformation, like anti-vax propaganda cannot be allowed because it endangers people. Children are dying of preventable diseases because their parents are morons who have been taken in by this crap. People who knowingly spread misinformation should absolutely face legal consequences.

So yes, you are wrong. I have no problem with conservative speech being allowed on the internet. I take issue with speech that endangers people. And I take issue with the government trying to curb speech that is merely critical but not dangerous. A lot of conservatives play hopscotch with that line, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was ready to say, "Wow, I guess I won't be going to Tunisia, even though that's on my bucket list", but now that I ve read the whole article, I think I'm good to go there still.

That guy was really dumb to do that. Yes, the punishment is harsh. But, do you remember the case where that young man was caned simply for spitting gum on the street in Singapore? But that’s the law there and it applied equally to everybody.

When in Rome, people! Just don’t tempt fate, that’s all.

Wow. Some of you really will make excuses for anything. The law and what is just and moral are not the same thing. No one should die for a Facebook post, law or not.

No one seems that concerned about the UK putting people in prison for Facebook posts. If people post racist things, they go to jail. I'd venture to say that most democrats support that. And if you support that, then you're okay with criminalizing speech in general, even if you balk at the death sentence.

What about my comment would lead you to assume I'm okay with criminalizing speech? I don't think people should go to jail for saying racist crap on Facebook. I think they should get called an a$$hole to their face, and I won't talk when they get their a$$ kicked. But I do not support the State executing or failing people for speech. So stop it with your gotcha BS. This is wrong and you know it.

Let me ask you something. If someone made a really racist tweet, do you think that is a crime, eg hate speech? It seems democrats commonly believe offensive speech ia criminal and that the government has an obligation to protect people from offensive or "harmful" speech (like vaccine skepticism, comments critical of transgender ideology etc). Democrats are completely okay with, for example, DHS giving guidelines to social media platforms about what speech should and shouldn't be allowed. Right? Or am I completely wrong here and you guys think conservative speech should be allowed on the internet now?

Hate speech is only criminalized in the U.S. when it is an enhancement to another crime (ie., physical violence, arson)

You can state all the hate speech you want and the government can't punish you. You might be deplatformed by a private company, but you do not have a 1st Amendment right on a privately owned social media app.

The issue I'm finding in many of these UK cases is that they combine hate/"Un-Woke" speech with a call for violence. The UK authorities proactively act when it comes to calls for violence, even if its arguably written as a joke.

HATE SPEECH DESERVES THE DEATH PENALTY.