
Judge to Sikh Man: Remove “That Rag” or Go to Jail - indus
https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief-racial-justice/judge-sikh-man-remove-rag-or-go-jail
======
retrogradeorbit
The judge should be impeached by the house because clearly he does not have
the character required for the job, nor the respect for the rule of law.

~~~
maratd
As much as I agree with you, the judge in the case is just bigoted, not
stupid. Judges frequently punish individuals they don't like by putting them
last on the docket. Somebody has to go last and it won't be recognized as
punishment as a consequence, even though it really is. Most sessions can run 5
to 6 hours, that's quite a long time to wait.

------
transfire
What can one say about these things? It's the 21st century and still we find
police officers, of all people, behaving like middle school children.

Word of advice to all Mississippians, watch "Enemy Mine" and keep watching it
until you _get it_.

------
adi2412
This, after many Americans called Miss America Nina Davuluri an Arab and a
terrorist. This is very saddening to the say the least.

~~~
eshvk
Free speech still stands. No one is stopping you from being stupid. Obviously
when one is a public official, racism/idiocy in this situation comes into play
and the person gets kicked out of office.Also being an Arab as far as I know
is not a slur. One is not supposed to know every damn ethnicity that exists.

~~~
adi2412
A mistake in identifying her ethnicity is fine. But what they did was call her
an Arab to associate her with terrorism and thus insult her.

Free speech does exist. But do remember that any free country also stipulates
that the freedom comes with the responsibility that you do not use your
freedom to hurt others.

~~~
eshvk
> Free speech does exist. But do remember that any free country also
> stipulates that the freedom comes with the responsibility that you do not
> use your freedom to hurt others.

There is a distinction between "hurting someone" as in "yelling fire" in a
crowded theatre to "hurting someone" as in going on twitter and spouting
random crap. Sure, you can sue for emotional damages or whatever if you
please. However, it really is not the same thing. At least the way it works in
America. I know that in some European countries, one's free speech rights are
limited (e.g. when it comes to holocaust denial or whatever).

------
usaphp
How is this story related to HACKER News? I visit Hacker news to read
interesting stories that are related to technology...

~~~
kunai
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

~~~
xtrumanx
So essentially everything is on-topic since anyone who responds to a complaint
regarding relevance will claim it gratified their curiosity.

~~~
r0h1n
> So essentially everything is on-topic

No. Which is why we have voting. "Everything" does not make the front page of
HN.

------
eridius
This is really terrible to read.

I don't understand why it's on Hacker News though.

------
contingencies
A succinct embodiment of all that is wrong with the self-assumed authority of
the modern nation-state, which, at its core, is based upon a monopoly of
violence.

~~~
derefr
I don't really want to engage with this (it's a really common talking point
and it won't change anyone's mind who didn't already agree) -- but your
phrasing made me for the first time realize what exactly the alternative is: a
free market for violence. Is that what you're advocating?

~~~
contingencies
_I don 't really want to engage with this (it's a really common talking point
and it won't change anyone's mind who didn't already agree)_

Oh right, and being trite with a false dichotomy is supposed to be more
constructive? Sheesh. I suspect if you were, say, homeless or wrongly jailed
for awhile then you'd come out far less dismissive of criticism of government.

~~~
derefr
No, seriously, it's such a common talking point that if you google the words
"monopoly of force" you'll find the argument hashed out, extremely we'll, by
both sides, thousands of times. So there's literally I reason to do it again,
instead of just linking to one of those.

My question was also literal, not rhetorical: is a free-market for force what
you intended to advocate? If not, what _are_ you advocating? Explain how force
should be divvied up, if a monopoly is suboptimal.

~~~
contingencies
I wasn't trying to roadmap a solution, merely highlight the excellence of the
example. However, I'll bite. I believe states are essentially post-WWI (ie.
passport era) anachronisms largely propped up through the UN and ISO who
prevent new states from succeeding. I believe that any group should have the
full right to succeed from the existing state at any time without any hard to
obtain consent thereof. I also believe that geographical proximity to a state,
for instance at birth, should not endanger one's capacity to travel beyond its
borders or seek meaningful membership of other social groups providing
competing avenues of service to its members. Critically, they should also have
the ability to use any form of currency they see fit, and thus to subvert
poorly performing governments by replacing present-era state mandated taxation
systems with alternatives that may be more responsive to local conditions in
terms of service provision and social priorities. Obviously, such changes will
require significant re-organization within market and supply systems, however
I also believe that owing to technological change we are entering an era in
which such a direction, despite its complex and untested nature, is becoming
more feasible.

