So, nobody can tell jokes if any person, no matter how mentally disturbed, might take it seriously?

Keep licking those boots

I personally hate responses like these to someone who has shown an opinion. It not only is a personal attack it is not constructive.

Why does he need to be “constructive”? Because it’s nice to be nice? Are we at a vicar’s tea party?

Calling the commenter a “boot licker” is an accurate critique of a pro-authority sycophant that has the virtue of brevity.

> Why does he need to be “constructive”?

We’re adults having a discussion. And it breaks HN Guidelines; “be nice” and “reply to the argument instead of calling names” [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The defacto assumption that internet discourse is a "discussion" is pretty implicitly wrong or at least very misguided. Most forums are much more in the mode of loud public arguments, which is why we have votes.

Even my own comment, by continuing this conversation serves in rhetorical, political, and philosophic capacities; many of which I don't intend but are implicit to how the medium is presented

> assumption that internet discourse is a "discussion" is pretty implicitly wrong…many forums

We aren’t on many forums. We’re here. I wouldn’t think twice about that comment on e.g. Reddit. But that’s why I’m no longer there. The people who go into “loud public arguments” and win often had an adult discussion before. That an increasing fraction of world chooses to only engage in the former is creating problems and the necessity of moving important debates, including political debates, away from them.

People use comments as a substitute for reading the article, that means whatever ideological thread is dominating the comments is also defacto going to be the mass interpretation of events. "Winning" a comment section can have relative major ideological concerns as it makes a whole community start framing events around them with certain sets of priors

Hello, I'm not a sycophant, you can check my comment history.

In this case I genuinely believe the post was borderline criminal and grossly irresponsible given the situation the world was in on March 20, 2020.

> In this case I genuinely believe the post was borderline criminal and grossly irresponsible given the situation the world was in on March 20, 2020.

You could rewrite this as "Not criminal". So you agree, the arrest was illegal. Great!

So, if someone said they wanted Brad Pitt to save them from the police, how likely do you think someone will take that seriously?

I would put it in the 0.001-0.00001% possibility. If you fear the mentally ill and make policy choices on that fear, you would necessarily have to ban free speech to mitigate such low risk.

You somehow have more sympathy for Detective Iles...?

> finding it impossible to have any sympathy for Mr. Bailey

From being arrested?

> finding it impossible to have any sympathy for Mr. Bailey

Nobody asked for sympathy. Just whether you think the state has the right to arrest people who make jokes “in poor taste.”

So was he arrested for what others could've done?

Without going into the merits of this particular case, you can get charged for inciting to violence. Indeed that's being arrested for what others could've done. Specifically for what they could have done, but would not have done if you had not incited them to.

For example, if a black man walks into a neighbourhood and someone claims to the neighbours that he is armed and on a killing spree, they are possibly putting that man's life in danger.

Edit: actually a better example is swarming. It's seriously endangering someone's life, so someone doing it can get arrested for what police could have done.

On the other hand, that man would have to be arrested because others wouldn't feel threatened should he not chosen to walk into that neighborhood.

If the legal standard for speech is "cannot be misinterpreted by an insane person" then... uh... how do we proceed?

Your statements were interpreted by an insane person incorrectly. So we gotta arrest you now! /s

"a mentally disturbed individual may take it seriously and decide to take the "law" in his own hands."

Are we going to arrest the entirety of the GOP and Fox news next?

"This person said something I didn't like so they should be arrested", isn't really a valid or worthwhile opinion though. I don't like your post. Should you be arrested for it?