Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/8243678
A Chinese music student was convicted on Thursday of U.S. charges that he harassed an activist who posted fliers at the Berklee College of Music in Boston supporting democracy in China and threatened to report her activities to Chinese law enforcement. A federal jury in Boston found Xiaolei Wu, 25, who sent the activist online messages saying he would chop off her hands and demanding she tear down her “reactionary posters,” guilty at the end of a four-day trial.
No comments here, I guess nobody is suprized about behaviour like this anymore.
But it’s very good to see that they get convicted.
deleted by creator
This has nothing to do with “free speech” and people need to stop misusing that concept. Free speech only protects you from the government impairing your speech, not other people or even businesses.
For example, If a mall decided to say “you’re not allowed to say bad things about China on our property” they could eject you from their property if you did say something bad about China. You don’t have the right to free speech on their property. Just like websites can ban you from saying specific things on their sites as well.
This is about threatening other people, you’re not allowed to do that for any reason, speech or otherwise. That’s why this asshat’s conviction is for cyberstalking and threat charges.
deleted by creator
You’re wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with 1a. The legal right to free speech has nothing to do with other individuals, or other governments.
deleted by creator
They aren’t exercising their right to free speech unless the US government would like them not to say it but is restricted from preventing them.
If the government doesn’t care, it’s just called talking.
If I have a gun but the government doesn’t care, am I not exercising my 2a rights?
The government can’t restrict your right to free speech until you exercise it. They didn’t, which is why this isn’t a 1a case, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t exercising their rights.
No, you are not.
You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in owning or procuring a gun.
It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your ability to own a gun, you therefor have a “right to own a gun”. For example, if you do not own a gun, and everyone who does own a gun doesn’t want to give/sell you a gun, your 2a rights were not violated.
……
Putting up a lost cat flyer, and having some random person yell at you for it is not exercising the “right to free speech” (for either party).
You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in speech/expression.
It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your speech/expression, you therefor have a right to speech/expression in all contexts. For example, if you want to go on a rant about your personal beliefs, the government unduly burdened you. However this will not stop the owner of the grocery store from calling the cops to have you trespassed for bothering all of the customers.
Correct, if the government would have let you have and use the gun anyway, you are not exercising your 2a right.
Exercise requires pushing limits. You aren’t exercising by lifting your spoon to your mouth.
The fact of owning a gun isn’t a 2nd amendment issue as your comment would imply… The government coming to take that gun in some way? Second amendment issue. Government tries to impede your purchase of that gun? 2nd amendment issue.
Whether or not the Chinese student didn’t like what she was saying has nothing to do with it being about or not being about freedom of speech.
Not to minimize the role that China’s educational indoctrination plays in this (because that is the underlying cause of the student feeling the need to defend China’s reputation with threats), but I’ve heard gamers threaten the same kind of bodily harm in League matches.
I think it’s tough to place the blame for this entirely on China, when he’s living in a society (our’s/ the US’s) that also teaches violence against women as a tool to silence them.
Sure, China made him feel the need to counter criticism of China with threats (just as the Chinese government does), but did China alone make him feel empowered to make those threats ones of bodily harm towards a woman? Much harder to say.
This could just as easily have been a story about an American guy defending Trump by telling a woman he’d hurt her.
There is one difference though, will China punish him for doing so? I don’t think so, will the US? Yes, they indeed are.
In either China or the US it will depend on many factors.
Many cases will go un-prosecuted if there is no media attention. In China, negative public opinion is even more likely to result in a charge and conviction than in the US, due to how their judicial system works.
Ahmaud Arbery was run down and shot in the middle of the street, in public view, and it took 3 months of the video of the murder being posted online before any of the 3 men who murdered him were charged with a crime. Local police and the local DA’s office had completely ignored the case, until media picked it up and started investigating, and that only happened because there was video.
Or the 215 bodies buried behind a prison in Mississippi, who no one ever was informed about, and whose causes of death (many while in police custody) will probably never be fully known.
I’d be interested to see statistics about whether a person of color in the US is treated more or less harshly than a Han (ethnic majority) Chinese person is in China; I’d wager that in terms of outcomes like sentencing, people of color in the US probably get a generally worse shake than Han Chinese people in China do, and white people a generally better shake.
Yea it seems pretty par for the course. As much as I really don’t like the US’s prison system, I personally think this kinda shit needs to see harsh punishments. Supporters of places like China and Russia need to know that this shit will not fly and that at least while they’re here, they need to suck it the fuck up