I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.

Many people in more restrictive countries (like Germany and the UK) are pretty shocked by what USians are permitted to say. Similarly, many USians are shocked by what folks in more restrictive countries are NOT permitted to say.

Krebs is an American journalist, living in America, writing for an American publication. The standard to use here is an American one, not any others.

> I guess you're just unaccustomed to America's loooooooooooooooooooongstanding free speech regs.

I'm reasonably certain that I know the extents of what you can and can't legally say in the US better than most people who live there. National differences in these things happens to be one of my areas of interest, but that is besides the point.

I'm viewing this through an ethical lens. Legality doesn't enter into it beyond recognizing that laws that deal with crime are often informed by morality.

chmod775 point is about ethics, not legality. (Though perhaps by "publication standard", you're saying that what's considered ethical is also judged by American standards?)

By "publication standard" I mean "standard" (with a side of "my brain is swiss cheese and repeats or erases words frighteningly frequently").

I'll update the post.

And yeah, when it comes to talking about things being discussed in the Public Square in America, the ethical standard should also be American.

> And yeah, when it comes to talking about things being discussed in the Public Square in America, the ethical standard should also be American.

I strongly take issue with this. The morality of something does not change based on where it occurs. If something is wrong, it is wrong.

We're likely both going to agree that executing gay people is not okay even if it happens in Saudi Arabia.

If you want to defend the practice, you'll have to make a proper argument. It being a local "standard" is not one.

> The morality of something does not change based on where it occurs.

Morals and ethics aren't the same thing. What is considered to be moral varies from person to person and from culture to culture.

Ethics is the study of morality. And while you're correct that people have subjective ideas of morality, it absolutely does not matter for the sake of this conversation. You are detracting.

Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean it is okay, has to be tolerated without comment, and is beyond criticism by those with differing views.

Just based on the value of fairness and that punishment should be decided in an actual court, not the court of public opinion or handed out by some guy named Brian, it is wrong regardless of where it occurs and I've made my reasoning for that pretty clear in this thread. I stand by that and you are still free to make some actual argument to the contrary. If the argument is just "in this country a lot of people feel it is fine", that's okay, just not very convincing to anyone I would imagine.

> Just because in some place a practice is considered to be okay (morally, whatever), does not mean ... [that it] has to be tolerated without comment...

Sure, I agree. If you were USian, I would defend to the death your right to speak openly and publicly about your concerns. [0]

And just because you feel strongly about your incorrect opinion about a widely-held-to-be-acceptable practice in USian journalism doesn't mean that I have to let that incorrect opinion pass by without comment.

It's a big world, and there are differing opinions on many, many things... morals (and the formation of explanatory systems overtop of the same) included.

[0] Whereas if you're in a more draconian jurisdiction that would prohibit such comments, I'll be publicly miffed about it and express my deep displeasure.