That's not what OP was arguing, though. OP appeared to be suggesting it was ok to arrest someone on flimsy grounds, because they were participating in a meme promoted by an organization with harmful ideology. I'm not sure what other motive we can ascribe to that post, really.

Arresting someone on flimsy grounds is pretty well protected by decades of case law. The police are granted a wide degree of latitude over whom they can arrest and for what reason. Sometimes this is abused but there are limits to how much damage you can do with this abuse.

The fact a fairly minor inconvenience was suffered to somebody with a pretty sick ideology certainly means I wont be clutching my pearls. Im sure the government did 1000 worse things happened today that didnt catch the attention of the editor of the mirror.

> The fact a fairly minor inconvenience was suffered to somebody with a pretty sick ideology certainly means I wont be clutching my pearls.

This feels like Martin Niemöller's poem, personified. I agree that this guy has a pretty sick ideology, but what if one of us posted something snarky/disrespectful about, say, pedophile religious leaders, and someone got offended, claiming we were being disrespectful toward their religion? I doubt you'd be so calmly dismissive of an arrest in this case, even if it was a "fairly minor inconvenience".

I know UK law is different, but at least in the US, just the fact that you have been arrested, even if no charges are ever filed, can cause you problems down the road. Just last week I was applying to renew my Global Entry subscription (for non-Americans who may not be familiar, it's a lame-I-have-to-do-this-yet-useful program to streamline re-entry into the US after traveling abroad), and there was a question that specifically asked if I had ever been arrested, even if the record for such an arrest had been expunged or sealed. Fortunately I was able to truthfully answer "no" to that, but had I been caught up in something ridiculous like the article describes, I would have had to answer "yes", and possibly be denied a useful government service.

You might also consider that a "minor inconvenience", but I'm sure there are more severe examples where merely having a no-charges-filed arrest on your record can have some dystopian consequences for a person.

> Im sure the government did 1000 worse things happened today that didnt catch the attention of the editor of the mirror.

That's just whataboutism. So we shouldn't care about what are perhaps minor abuses, just because there are worse abuses?

Whataboutism is definitely the most abused term of 2022.

A reasonably charitable interpretation of OP's comment suggests they were not suggesting that at all.

I don't see that at all, and invoking "charitable interpretation" is a bit disingenuous. Why bring up the context if not to suggest that this arrest was justified because of the person's ideology?

I don't think it's ever disingenuous to invoke charitable interpretation when an uncharitable interpretation is made.

The comment was giving context around why the guy's actions might be considered morally reprehensible (or more simply, "wrong"), and was not in any way suggesting that that made an arrest justified. In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made.

If the reader makes that leap (here despite the comment author's warning), then that's on the reader, and it's exactly why charitable interpretation is important. Without charitable interpretation, people put words in each others' mouths, talk past each other, or don't hear each other.

It's essential to civil discourse in general: most of what most people write or say will be less than perfect, so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness. So no, it's not disingenuous at all to bring this up. (But isn't doing this exhausting? My goodness is it ever! Yes.)

Note, crucially, that a "charitable interpretation" is not necessarily the "most likely interpretation" or "the interpretation you believe is the most accurate". It is the interpretation that puts the other person in the most favourable light, while remaining mostly (yes, this often requires flexibility and some approximation) logically consistent with what was actually said or written. In this particular case, a charitable interpretation can be made by simply not putting words in the author's mouth: his text is entirely consistent with the charitable interpretation.

"Disingenuous" was definitely an unfair characterization, and I apologize for that.

> In fact the text explicitly says that this is not the point being made.

I don't think it's fair to prime someone with a bunch of negative information, and then turn around and say "no, no! I'm not trying to prejudice your thinking at all!"

To me, I think all this context was entirely unnecessary. This article is able police excess -- or, really, legal excess. I would much rather have a discussion about whether or not the sorts of laws that lead to arrests like this are reasonable and acceptable in a free society. Instead -- and I agree that doing this is exhausting! -- we are not only muddying the waters by giving people an excuse to say "yeah, but this person deserved it because they are anti-trans", but we are going into a meta-meta discussion about whether or not someone meant to muddy the waters or not. Which, IMO, is entirely irrelevant: the waters have been muddied, and this entire subthread is a stupid waste of time, time that I regret wasting (but, given who I am, I know I will waste again sometime in the future).

To me, the point is not "this guy said some stuff that muddied the waters, but he didn't intend to muddy the waters, so it's ok". The point is that the waters have been muddied with irrelevant context, and instead of having an interesting discussion about freedom of speech, we're talking about how shitty an anti-trans group is. Which, ok, sure, this group does indeed seem pretty shitty, but I don't come to HN because I want to get into a mood where need to yet again get pissed at shitty transphobic people.

> so productive two-way communication requires making constant active effort to forgive any perceived allusion, subtext or sleight, to the point of unreasonableness.

This two-way communication is a two-way street. We should not put all of the burden on the reader. The author should have a responsibility to be as clear as possible, and avoid posting things that are guaranteed to throw a discussion off-topic.

I don't disagree! I think a fairer criticism of the parent comment might have been, for example, something like:

"The relevant question is not whether this person did something reprehensible or wrong or even harmful, but rather whether the police's actions were proportional, or whether there was a legal basis for an arrest... Or even whether the current legal framework is how it ought to be."

The goal in the above paragraph is to:

- neutralize any unfair rhetorical impact of the parent comment

- allow for the parent comment to be read charitably

- argue directly to the relevance of the point, and help refocus or reframe the discussion

Now query whether I'd be successful at any of this... But I think that's how I would approach it!

I think your criticism demonstrates a willingness to only criticize one side of an argument, the one you happen to disagree with.

You ask for a charitable interpretation of OP, but don't give a charitable interpretation of the response.

To demonstrate, even if OP didn't mean to imply the interpretation as everyone sees it, it's highly upvoted and natural to interpret it as such.

The fact that it's upvoted demonstrates that many people do agree with the perspective of that interpretation. In other words, even if the interpretation is not correct (a very dubious claim), it's clearly a popular perspective. Yet you're not willing to engage with it.

I'm actually not on anyone's "side" here, and I provided an example of criticism I thought would be fairer. I also explained (I believe quite clearly) why I thought one criticism was valid and the other was not.[1]

The popularity of a comment does not change its meaning.

---

[1] In fact, I would like to point out that the alternative criticism I have just proposed (the one on which you are commenting) is essentially the same one you yourself made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32428259

It would appear we're actually of the same opinion on the substance of the parent comment, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here. Is it at all possible that you may have projected a little bit?

Nonsense. That is what they were saying.

> In other western democracies, freedom of speech isn't paramount. What you say matters and you can be held responsible for it and the harm you cause.

I understand, but that's not what you said in GP.

I'm not GP.

That's fine, my mistake. You should charitably interpret it as "your response doesn't align with the GP comment."

Apologies, I didn't mean it negatively or anything, just for folks following along.