Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
from the there-is-no-defense-against-defamation-in-Turkey dept
Truth is no defense against allegations of defamation -- not in Turkey where criminal defamation law is just one of the government's many weapons deployed against critics. Journalist Pelin Ünker has been sentenced to more than a year in jail by a Turkish court for publishing undeniable facts.
An Istanbul court sentenced the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ member to imprisonment for 13 months for “defamation and insult.”
Ünker, who reported that former prime minister Binali Yildirim and his sons owned companies in Malta in the Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet, was also fined $US1615.
Ünker's reports were drawn from the Paradise Papers, which exposed the secret bank accounts of politicians and world leaders -- tax dodging efforts deployed by people whose salaries are paid with tax dollars collected from others. The accusations involving Binali Yildirim were true, and yet, the court somehow found telling the truth about a high-ranking Turkish government figure was defamatory.
Ünker said what made the “world first” ruling so remarkable was that the complainants acknowledged that her articles were true.
“This decision is not a surprise for us. Because the result was certain from the beginning. There is no criminal offense or defamation in my articles,” she said.
“The fact is Binali Yıldırım’s sons have Maltese companies. Binali Yıldırım had already accepted that they have these companies. In the indictment, it is also accepted.
In Turkey, it's illegal to expose shady dealings and wrongdoing if it involves government officials. The courts serve the Turkish government, rather than act as a check against its overreach. This is all headed up by one of the world's thinnest-skinned autocrats, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who made made a cottage industry of worldwide censorship.
It's a garbage ruling by a garbage court in a country run by a collective of garbage people who wield an unholy amount of power. Ünker plans to appeal the ruling -- not necessarily because it will change things, but because that's what you do when you're faced with a clearly unfair ruling from a wholly-subservient court.
If anything is going to change the situation in Turkey, it's not going to be some magical reawakening of basic respect for human rights from deep inside the government. It's the rest of the world applying pressure by refusing to pretend President Erdogan has anything worthwhile to contribute to the world. American tech companies need to blow off the country's demands for user info and content removal, and governments of other countries need to stop following up on criminal complaints filed by Turkey against foreign citizens. The status quo is being maintained by world inaction and Turkey's citizens paying the price over and over again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: binali yildirim, journalism, offshore tax shelter, paradise papers, pelin unker, truth, turkey, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, Putin doesn’t kill journalists.
He has people to do that for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now, the first thing to do when you're being stalked by an ugly mob with raspberries, is to release the tiger!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contraire
"Journalist Pelin Ünker has been sentenced to more than a year in jail by a Turkish court for publishing undeniable facts.(about government officials)"
"It's a garbage ruling by a garbage court..."
She knew it was illegal, she did it anyway, and the "garbage ruling by a garbage court" found her guilty of breaking an existing law that she knew full well she was breaking.
How is that a "garbage ruling"? You may not agree with that law. But if you go to Turkey and *deliberately break it, or ANY of their laws*, you're not a "hero", you're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
By that argument whistleblowers are also 'idiots', no matter what they expose, so long as a court buys the argument that they violated a law to do so. Likewise historical figures who broke existing laws to highlight just how bad they were(like, oh I dunno, where certain people can sit in a bus?).
It's an atrocious and laughably corrupt law practically tailor made to prevent the peons from knowing what the nobility are doing by making exposing factual information, and rather relevant information at that, illegal, and by following along and applying it the rubbish court is, as the article notes, acting not as a check against the government but merely a tool of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
Even a ten year-old knows: DO NOT SNITCH.
Television and media are great at suckering people into sacrificing their personal well-being for some "cause."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
Those who snitch out people in power wind up targeted, others fear standing with them lest they be targeted, they lose money, friends, and many things others take for granted.
If you want to live your life in a television fantasy go ahead. The real world runs much differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with yo
In the real world, most whistleblowers are people who know and understand the consequences, but accept them because they believe that doing the right thing is more important. Many of the freedoms you currently enjoy are a direct result of people like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail wit
Don't bother asking the ones who have suffered far worse. Very easy to sit in an ivory tower cheering on others who take risks so we can feel good about people.
Crime pays.
Don't snitch.
Many people are duped by tales like yorus and don't realize you can't undo being a snitch and once you are identified as one your life as you know it is effectively over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail
So, because you can think of an example of someone who went in over their head, that negates the actions of the people who knowingly risked or sacrificed?
"Very easy to sit in an ivory tower cheering on others who take risks so we can feel good about people."
Yes, you do seem to rather enjoy trashing the people who brought you the rights which you are using to attack them.
"Many people are duped by tales like yorus"
Tales of what has happened in real life? I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ten bux says that anon is an agent of Erdoğan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail
Monica Lewinsky wasn't a whistleblower, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U mad bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…because cynical assholes like you decided long ago to stop giving a fuck about doing what is right (or the people who are doing what is right) and start kissing the asses of your “betters”. Yeah, the world is shit—I get that. So what do you plan to do about it: nothing or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no point in fighting evil if good will stand down while you do it. Look at #metoo and what happened tow omen who spoke up.
Ever hear about the nuclear whistleblower who was beaten within an inch of his life for exposing a radiation risk to a small town? Doubtful you'd even care.
One CEO losing his job does not offset one worker losing his life or livelihood.
Like I said, even ten year-olds know: DO NOT SNITCH.
Talk is cheap, and yours only proves why what I say is correct: CRIME PAYS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Talk is cheap, and yours only proves why what I say is correct: CRIME PAYS.
... because the criminals know that there's plenty of self-serving cowards such as yourself who will look the other way lest they be next, and as such ensure that said criminals will continue to benefit from their actions because no one dares call them on it.
Thankfully there's still more than a few people out there with the courage to stand up for what they believe is right, even if it costs them, and even if they know ahead of time that all they're providing is a chance for things to change for the better, rather than ensuring it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Criminals? You mean people who break laws, usually deliberately?
You seem to have a sliding scale on "crime", in that it only applies to laws YOU like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth,—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”
— Henry David Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience)
A person who breaks the law can be called a “criminal” regardless of their purpose for their breaking the law. On this point, I agree in principle. But if you would label those who break the law for the purpose of civil disobedience of an unjust law as “criminal”, you may want to reëxamine your prejudices and biases. You could one day be in the position to perform a similar act of “criminality”—and I doubt that, in such a situation, you would appreciate having the label of “criminal” applied to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd have no problem being labeled a criminal if I was arrested, tried, and convicted of *deliberately* breaking a law. The shoe fits.
I *would* take exception to *anyone* calling the Court that convicted me "garbage" because they followed the Law. That's their job.
A court's job is NOT to Legislate.
As to "civil disobedience", I can't think of a single example offhand in the last half century where the penalty for the violations was a Prison (NOT Jail) term.
Someone, as always, brought up Parks. Even forgetting all the machinations behind that stunt, she wasn't facing prison time for her actions.
And as bad as US prisons are, they can't hold a candle to the conditions and brutality of the Turkish prisons. She probably won't survive the year.
Remember, she didn't "discover" either the law she broke or that members of the Turkish government were "hiding" money under it. She just deliberately broke the law against "advertising" it. Knowingly. From inside Turkish jurisdiction.
She's an idiot. Strike that, she's up there in the realm of the Special Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you say that as if it is a universal principle, and it isn't.
You should probably research the history of English common law, which has been inherited, with modifications and exceptions, by the U.S. The main defining feature of the common law is that, in fact, judges DO make law. You might not like it, you might be a conservative that doesn't like "judicial activism", but your belief is irrelevant to the factual matter.
You could have said that the Turkish legal system doesn't follow that principle, and then there could be a reasoned response about how they think that it should, but that would be a separate issue, and you didn't say that.
If you aren't already a fan of Robert Bork, you should look him up, you would like him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The job of a criminal court is to seek justice. In any court worth a goddamn, justice must be realized regardless of the consequences. (Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum — "Let justice be done though the heavens fall.") A court that acts as an extension of a dictator, as a retaliatory agent of the government, in service of a law that makes a crime out of embarassing that dictator…yes, that court is garbage, and yes, it should be described as such. Such a court does not care about justice; it cares only about appeasing an asshole who thinks his power is immutable and his rule is eternal.
If you will not stand up and declare this ruling an affront to the concept of justice, you need to sit down and shut up while the grown folks are talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you will not stand up and declare this ruling an affront to the concept of justice, you need to sit down and shut up while the grown folks are talking."
They ruled on THE LAW. Their ruling was correct - she violated it, willfully at that.
Personally, I don't agree with that particular law either.
However, I'm not a Turkish citizen, so my opinion on their laws, government, and legal system has no impact.
I'm also not bloody stupid enough to deliberately throw myself into the bear pit of another country's system with a pork chop around my neck.
And I have no sympathy or "compassion" for those who ARE stupid enough to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Stupid”, “dumb”, “idiot”…you toss those words around in judgment of this woman and those who think (as she may have) that standing up to power regardless of the consequences is a noble act. If you ever end up in a position in which you feel so strongly about a closely-held belief or personal conviction that you would stand up to power and break the law despite the possible consequences, may we all have permission to call you names and demean you as a human being because of your choice?
You may disagree with the law, but you still continue to demean the woman who broke that law. You do not need to tell us about your lack of compassion—you have demonstrated it well enough to make it self-evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what the journalist's job is? Hint: it didn't magically change because some corrupt fascists decided they didn't want their crimes talked about.
"She's an idiot. Strike that, she's up there in the realm of the Special Idiots."
Why? Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that she didn't know the risk or the penalty. That is not supported by the linked article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, they're not "corrupt". And while the government is obviously dictatorial, I don't think they come under the actual definition of "Fascist".
In the US, Bribery is illegal. You can be convicted for offering, paying, or accepting a bribe. Any of the three is corruption.
But if Bribery were made legal, those indulging in it in any manner would no longer be "corrupt".
As to why she's a Special Idiot, she committed her crime, yes, crime, inside of Turkish jurisdiction. If she'd moved to France, Botswana, or Elbonia and published, she'd have been shielded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for your last comment - maybe she is willing to take the hit to shine a light on the abuses in her own country? We literally wouldn’t be talking about this if she wasn’t facing jail time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> deliberately?
Rosa Parks was a criminal. She's also considered by everyone who isn't a psychopath to be a hero for her criminality because in many cases, the law itself is both immoral and criminal (in the philosophical sense), having been imposed by the corrupt from above on people whom it victimizes and who had no say in its passage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mainly because pricks like you would rather lick the boots of your oppressors than make any personal sacrifices for the greater good.
You should be thankful that history has been lived by men with a spine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You may think you are better than all the fools who fight on, but there you stand: the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.
You are a coward, to your last whimper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But if you go to Turkey and deliberately break it, or ANY of their laws, you're not a "hero", you're an idiot.
only proves why what I say is correct: CRIME PAYS.
...so on the one hand, breaking laws pays... on the other hand breaking the law is stupid, and only stupid people do it.
No, what you're actually saying here is that "crime" is irrelevant. That everyone should outright ignore what what may or may not be legal, and focus only on how to best to make themselves useful to anyone with more power than them. Which is fine, but don't pretend to wrap this up into some statement about laws or crimes or the workings of the court system. Your worldview does not consider these things at all, it only considers power. Crime pays...sometimes. Crime is stupid and ruins your life...sometimes. Power is the only thing which matters to you.
Anyway, the court is garbage either way you look at it. After all, Turkey also has laws against tax evasion... If the court is not garbage because it followed the law, then the court is garbage for not following the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
As a rule, those who break laws and those who remain quiet while witnessing others break laws live peaceful, prosperous lives because they have money and are not targeted by people.
Another rule is that there exist people who are too self-aware to enjoy "peace and prosperity" while living lives of pants-shitting cowardice and slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with yo
> others fear standing with them lest they be targeted,
> they lose money, friends, and many things others take for
> granted.
And then become a historically recognized heroes whose actions resulted in those powerful people getting a boot in their ass. Like Rosa Parks. Like Washington, Jefferson, and the gang. Like MLK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail wit
Veronica Guerin is a good example of that. Only erason she was lionized in death is she was hung out to dry in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail wit
Smart people know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
The court ruled on the law. Correctly.
She had no defense - she knew the law and broke it anyway.
How does that make the court that CONFIRMED HER ACTIONS "garbage"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
Additionally, when presented with a law that is itself garbage, what is it that a court of law should do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
They should do as they have always done: Rule on the current case according to the current law. It is not their job to strike down a law. That's an entirely separate process.
This can make for rulings that everyone generally considers "bad", perhaps even the judge agrees. But it is not the place of the court to pick and choose which laws to apply. They may interpret the law thereby setting new precedent but they cannot and should not decide to ignore the law out of a dislike for the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with yo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail wit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail
"What is the ideal purpose of a court of law, regardless of what country it is in?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off
I'm not asking about Turkey, or America, or any country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
There is nothing in US Law that allows a Judge to legislate from the bench. The main purpose of the Judge in a Criminal trial is to make sure that the Law is followed by both sides in the US adversarial system.
The Jury is tasked with ruling on the case in question. While Jury Nullification, the act of a jury refusing to return a Guilty verdict because they disagree with the Law being prosecuted happens, but rarely.
In this particular case, she knowingly broke a law, was tried for it, and the court ruled that she was guilty of breaking said law.
How is that a "garbage ruling from a garbage court"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the only reason she was even standing trial for publishing the actual goddamn truth was because a dictator/wealthy allies of said dictator decided punishing someone for publishing a truth that embarassed people in power was something to be made illegal and the court went along with that bullshit out of fear of, or complicity with, those powerful men. If a court in the U.S. were to convict someone for doing what she did because our current POTUS and his cronies (both in and out of government) decided that embarassment of the powerful was a prosecutable criminal act, we would rightfully call that conviction the act of a tyrant. The law in Turkey is bullshit, the court that allowed a conviction under that law is garbage, and the people who had that woman tossed in jail for telling the truth are assholes. It would take a better argument than “but it’s the law there” for me to change my mind on the matter—and you have proven that you cannot provide such an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
Did I win an Aereo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Make your betters look bad? Off to jail with you.'
So are you agreeing that it's not a "garbage ruling" by a "garbage court"?
No, both of those still apply. The law is garbage, the court for mindlessly applying it are garbage, and the ruling that resulted from it is garbage.
That it may be entirely legal in Turkey is besides the point, and changes none of the above. Legality does not automatically equal 'just' or 'right', and you don't need to look very far through history for that to be made crystal clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contraire
The simplest reply to that would be "So, you're opposed to laws?", but I'd like to hear how ONE person deliberately breaking ONE law, is an example of civil disobedience.
If a law is passed in your jurisdiction making walking into a police station with your hat on backwards punishable by the same fine as Jaywalking (usually $25-50) and you deliberately break it, I have no sympathy for you having to pay the fine.
You knew the penalty.
If you happen to have a huge police station and 200 people do it at the same time as a "civil disobedience" protest, I'd chuckle at it, mainly because they just gifted the jurisdiction $5-10,000.
Now, if the penalty was a year of being brutalized in a Turkish prison, I'd be amazed that so many Special Idiots managed to figure out which way to wear the hats at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
"You knew the penalty."
Some people break laws deliberately in order to call attention to them, with the full knowledge of the penalties. They may put knowingly put the overall public good over and above their own personal wellbeing. There are many examples throughout history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contraire
You're comparing Jaywalking with First Degree Murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contraire
You asked for an act of civil disobedience and I provided one. There are thousands of others. If your prison rape fantasy is necessary for the term to apply in your head, that's your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trotting out the “not as bad as” version of the moral equivalence fallacy is one of the worst counterarguments you could have made. Rosa Parks performed an act of civil disobedience and suffered the consequences for it; that she was not “brutalized, raped, and … killed” does not make her act of civil disobedience any less of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If she'd faced a year in prison, you'd have a comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, if you wanna go right to the top, there’s Reverend King himself. He practiced and preached civil disobedience. He called for non-violent solutions to the problems of Black Americans. And he was eventually shot in the fucking face for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
The simplest reply to that would be "So, you're opposed to laws?"'
It wouldn't actually. That reply would make no sense at all, and your use of it shows you lack basic reasoning skills. According to your logic, slaves should just do their work without pay, with no fuss, because that was/is the law in their jurisdiction? If you are gay and it is illegal to be gay, you better just stop being gay or go to jail. If this is truly what you think, you are a scumbag, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter how many people support it, or what country it is in. It is hard to even comprehend the moral and ethical bankruptcy of your position.
Civil disobedience is not opposition to laws, it is opposition to unjust laws. No, people do not have to bow down to their overlords and do everything they are told. Yes, they can judge for themselves whether their problem with a law goes beyond mere disagreements in desired policy, and is in fact opposition to injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa, come on now! You didn’t need to insult bunnies like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contraire
If they HAD, they'd be in the Special Kind of Idiot group themselves.
They aided fleeing blacks IN SECRET, protecting themselves from legal retribution.
Which this journalist could have one-upped simply by leaving Turkey before publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
Yes, because everyone has the option of upending their entire life and leaving their home town/state/country before doing something their home town/state/country considers “illegal”~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
1. Martin Luther vs the quite powerful, at the time, Catholic Church and it;s Pope.
2. The 1776 American Revolution. They really - overtly - told the English King where to stick it, even drew him a map, and broke quite a few English laws in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Contraire
Much of the time, a whistleblower isn't even believed by those in power, and when they are, they are still a threat.
Our country is rotton to the core and not worth that type of individual battle anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
Yeah, why bother even trying to make the world a better place~? Let’s just sit back, get stoned, and bingewatch Stranger Things~!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Contraire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contraire
You're all over the Second Amendment on the grounds that if the government ever gets too tyrannical you'll... do what, exactly?
So... rebellion for me but not for thee? Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If You Don’t Know How To Type “Yıldırım” or “Erdoğan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If You Don’t Know How To Type “Yıldırım” or “Erdo
The stylebooks recognize that using non-Latin alphabets and diacritical marks adds nothing to comprehension.
That sort of insistence upon "the right way" of using incomprehensible characters is, as the old joke goes, like wetting your pants while wearing a dark suit... it makes the wearer feel warm all over, but nobody else actually notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: diacritical marks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: diacritical marks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: diacritical marks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: diacritical marks
I understand your point to a degree, but it's a trivial one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: standard Latin alphabet
Even in English, consider the difference between “resume” and “resumé”. What would “common courtesy” dictate about distinguishing between them versus not doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: standard Latin alphabet
The 26 standard classical letters of the Latin alphabet. These can be augmented with accents, umlauts, etc. but languages differ in this regard and so the standards are the only constant. In Spanish n and ñ are different letters, but when transcribing to English it's not uncommon for just n to be used in place of both, as the target audience would not make the distinction.
"Even in English, consider the difference between “resume” and “resumé”. What would “common courtesy” dictate about distinguishing between them versus not doing so?"
The accent in the latter is optional and the distinction between them given by context when written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: diacritical marks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Donald Trump could get away with tossing journalists in jail for telling the truth, the religion upon which the U.S. legal system was based could be Satanism, for all it would matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“My religion is just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Anton LaVey, Founder, Church of Satan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to a defamation charge; if it's provably true, you can say whatever you want.
US law forked from British Common Law in 1776; one of the differences that have developed between US and British law on defamation is that in Britain, truth isn't a defense; the "victim" only has to prove they've been harmed (anything from financially to reputation) and they not only win, their accuser may wind up paying them damages.
I don't know how this works in Canada, Australia, or any of the other Commonwealth countries, but one of the jobs of the Commonwealth is to keep all their various legal systems heading more or less the same direction. That would make the USA very much the oddball outlier of the English-speaking world.
The countries that were never under British Common Law... I'd bet most of them are more like Britain than the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI, Tyranny and Turkeys
Turkish Court Jails Journalist For Telling The Truth About A Politician's Offshore Tax Shelter
News Flash.......
US government stands side by side in solidarity with Turkish Court by sending US gestapo (ie FBI) to detain US born Iranian Journalist while she was visiting family in St Louis Missouri.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from a report titled - American-Born Iranian Journalist Detained in U.S. by FBI found at the website www.usnews.com:
The station learned that Hashemi, born Melanie Franklin of New Orleans, was transferred by the bureau to a detention facility in Washington, D.C., and it says officials have not provided a reason for her arrest.
According to Press TV, Hashemi, who converted to Islam in 1982, has worked for the station for 25 years. She was in the United States to visit her family and brother, who has cancer. Hashemi could not communicate with her family and was only allowed to contact her daughter two days after being taken into custody, the outlet said.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-01-16/american-born-iranian-journalist-marzieh-h ashemi-detained-by-fbi-while-visiting-us
It is such a wonderful sight to behold when the US government lowers the nation deeper the sewers so we all may swim together in the sea of shit they so joyfully have created.
How long can you hold your breath?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They knew what they were getting into...
I say... let 'em crash!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patriotism isn't blind worship of a flag or a government. It's doing what's best for your country and its people regardless of the cost or legality and without listening to or believing nationalist propaganda. It's exposing corruption in your government and calling out those in power when they're not serving the people.
Something you don't seem to understand or refuse to admit is that not all laws are good. Many laws, such as copyright in its present state and these anti-journalist laws in Turkey and elsewhere, are unethical and unjust, and it is not wrong to bend or break such laws. Authoritarianism is wrong. While authorities who use their position responsibly and justly are good and should be respected, far too many do not. And it's never wise to take any extreme position - excessive authority inevitably leads to tyranny.
As Yoda said,"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
I cannot believe I just quoted one of Prequels! Gah, I need to go watch the Despecialized Edition OT now to get the horrors of the Prequels out of my mind.
Bamboo Boy, you're about as intelligent and skilled as Admiral Ozzel blundering his way out of hyperspace and into Vader's Force-choke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]