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.

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • HumbleFlamingo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        If I have a gun but the government doesn’t care, am I not exercising my 2a 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.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          One of the definition of exercise is “the active use or application of something.” How is carrying a weapon not an application of second amendment rights? How is putting posters in a public space not an application of first amendment rights?

          This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.