Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
162 comments
He should get a Royal Apology as well, even if the PM already issued one.
Finally. Though it is the very least that the establishment could do given how Turing was treated.
> "Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life after undergoing chemical castration following a conviction for homosexual activity, has been granted a posthumous royal pardon 59 years after his death."
I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.
I don't understand, I thought what was needed was "royal apologies". WTH.
Don't be too concerned by the "Royal" nature of the pardon. In the UK the legislative system is in theory dependent on the Royal prerogative (i.e all laws derive from the will of the head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II). In practice that is not so, as Her Majesty does not personally deliberate on legislative matters.
However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the pardon.
However, as a journalistic device, describing the decision as "Royal" conveys the journalists and editors feelings as to the importance and sincerity of the pardon.
wreegab was not objecting to the "royal", but to it being a pardon instead of an apology.
The British government has already issued an apology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
Somewhere between better than nothing and nothing.
The manner in which the document was written makes its authenticity strike me as highly surprising.
How ironic, coming the same week as LGBT education sites are blocked by British "porn" filters.
The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.
The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.
The "porn" filters are stupid and creeping totalitarianism, but it's irresponsible and disrespectful to compare them to what was done to Turing.
He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government sanctions.
World of difference between that and a porous filter.
He was persecuted and prosecuted; publically humiliated; forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent; banned from traveling to the USA; essentially banned from any jobs involving cryptography or national security; and ultimately committed suicide in large part because of government sanctions.
World of difference between that and a porous filter.
He was persecuted for his sexual orientation, and furthermore this was done despite his obvious contribution to the safety of the nation. This placed sexual mores as more important than national interest.
A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content.
This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as freedom of information.
A default information filter is currently being introduced by several ISPs in the UK, it starts by filtering sexual content.
This is similar in concept to the attitudes that cause immense suffering to Turing, i.e. controlling the public expression and liberty of the sexual life is being considered as more important that protecting civil liberties such as freedom of information.
>forced to receive hormonal injections that rendered him impotent //
He wasn't forced to receive hormone injections he chose it in preference to serving a one year imprisonment. As an expert chemist he was no doubt aware of the implications of that choice.
My reading of this has always been that his apparent predilection for picking up teenagers made him a massive security risk. Surely had he done the same with teenage girls he too would have been banned from jobs involving high level security clearance. It also strikes me that maybe Turing didn't like that element of his life?
[I have a pop-psych theory on this all being related to a fixation on Morcom, his childhood friend who died. But 40-something men lusting for teenagers is common enough that the theory lacks support.]
He wasn't forced to receive hormone injections he chose it in preference to serving a one year imprisonment. As an expert chemist he was no doubt aware of the implications of that choice.
My reading of this has always been that his apparent predilection for picking up teenagers made him a massive security risk. Surely had he done the same with teenage girls he too would have been banned from jobs involving high level security clearance. It also strikes me that maybe Turing didn't like that element of his life?
[I have a pop-psych theory on this all being related to a fixation on Morcom, his childhood friend who died. But 40-something men lusting for teenagers is common enough that the theory lacks support.]
Can we please stop calling them "porn filters"? It's not what they are, it's "censorship filters". The label matters.
First step to knighthood?
You can't be posthumously knighted. Furthermore, the title of Knight is revoked upon death - For example, when Sir Paul McCartney dies he will lose his title.
This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were unacceptable even 10 years ago, but this is a case where people should have looked the other way. Alan Turning is both a war hero and one of the greatest minds to ever live. To simply disregard someone like that because of their sexual orientation is both short sighted and a disgusting lack of humanity. Imagine how much further computing would be if he had lived longer? If he had been free to think and live without ridicule and the tests run on him?
Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than Turing.
Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle me.
Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and "disgusting lack of humanity."
Huh? Special people should be allowed to break laws the rest of us have to follow? Gays should not have been persecuted, but only if they were "war heroes" and had "great minds"?
No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)
No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)
Wouldn't it be much more forceful if his conviction remained as a mahnmal? Something to point at and say "here's what we did to a brilliant man because we were too small-minded to think otherwise"?
All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of his conviction.
All pardoning Turing does now is lead us to eventually forget the tragedy of his conviction.
Pardon? For what? Thanks but no thanks.
Buggery. It's been illegal many places for a very long time because it spreads disease. The sodomy laws were effectively repealed and we got AIDS. It was not a coincidence.
Do you really think the law made that much difference? Why not just pass a law requiring condom use. Would that make you happy?
Sexual intercourse of any kind spreads disease. AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse. It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all.
Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?
Going further, I'd wager that any form of interpersonal contact, even non-sexual, is as likely to spread some form of disease. Why not enact a law which requires any person to don a hazmat suit before venturing into public space? Or better yet, a law which forbids any person from entering public space?
They used to lock you up for adultery, too, right up to the 60s. Disease was a consideration. So it's not just a matter of targeting gays.
> AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse
Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.
> AIDS didn't become an epidemic because of anal intercourse
Yes it did. This is not remotely controversial. Aids and many other STDs are spread chiefly by buggery. This is why the red cross does not want blood donations from homosexuals.
Red cross (in the US) doesn't want blood donations from people who lived in Europe for long enough. Because they have HIV? No.
You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.
You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts...
FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.
FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.
What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe.
I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.
I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.
Did you read their explanation at all?
A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an
increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain
infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent
approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the
population
most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at
least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an
estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were
attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.
Exactly what conclusions do you draw from those stats? Yes, I remember from my mathematics degree that 39<61, but what does that have to do with anything? What groups do you think you are comparing?
(Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral.
Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison.
I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.
(Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral.
Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison.
I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.
Ireland doesn't allow people who lived in the UK for a while from donating blood.
[deleted]
It's pretty clear that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases spread just as well from almost any kind sexual activity, and many of them -- including AIDS -- spread from any transfer of bodily fluids at all.
It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.
It's clear that HIV can spread via a wide range of sexual activities, but some are much higher risk than others. At the extremes, receptive anal intercourse has a transmission risk roughly 50 times higher than insertive vaginal intercourse, while the risk of oral sex is believed to be non-zero but too low to be accurately measurable.
Wikipedia gives estimates on differences between anal and vaginal transmission are about 8-1 but also admits the numbers could be off by a factor of 10.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
I was going by Health Canada numbers -- either way, there's a difference.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
Agreed.
What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.
Agreed.
It is spread by widespread heterosexual sodomy in Africa in addition to homosexual sodomy.
I grew up around the time teens were force-fed sex education regarding AIDS, and the message was loud and clear and consistent: Ordinary sex is a great way to contract HIV. This, in fact, was always a lie--and a coordinated lie--and the scientists knew about it.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od...
the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million.
(Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex.
So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/895/what-are-the-od...
the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million.
(Sorry for the crummy source, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this BS.) The original infections seen by doctors weren't just homosexuals, but those who had sometimes dozens of sexual encounters per week. It was clear from the beginning how this disease was spread--reciprocal anal sex.
So why the contrary propaganda? Well, if a disease primarily effects a small, ultra-promiscuous portion of two percent of the general population, research funding tends to lose popular support.
The risk of being infected with hiv by someone who doesn't carry the virus is obviously very small. Very few people have hiv, so you probably won't be infected if you have sex. That's how I read that quote, anyway. Are you saying that advocating never having sex with the same partner more than once would have been better advice for reducing the spread of STDs?
The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.
The unique thing about hiv is the high moortality rate (and cost of treatment). It makes perfect sense to reduce transmission before it becomes a true global epidemic.
Obviously. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the scientists wanting to make sure that widespread HIV infection didn't break out within heterosexual communities - which it could easily have done as we've seen in Africa. If heterosexual people had been taught they didn't need to worry about HIV, we could easily have had similar outbreaks here which would rapidly have made the odds a lot worse. (Also, it's impossible to reliably tell if the person you're having sex with is a member of a high-risk group anyway.)
[deleted]
I believe that the above comment is misguided on a number of levels, especially the (assumed) bigoted nature of the writer, but first, note that in New York, one of the major American centers of the HIV/AIDS crisis (with the other being San Francisco), sodomy laws were only repealed by court order in 1980 [1], while AIDS was first clinically observed in America in 1981 [2].
Second, it is widely considered that the spread of HIV (which causes AIDS) was a result of (heterosexual) prostitution. If you look at [2], we see that it was spread extensively by African prostitutes from rural Congo, an almost uniquely heterosexual phenomenon.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Onofre [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#History
Second, it is widely considered that the spread of HIV (which causes AIDS) was a result of (heterosexual) prostitution. If you look at [2], we see that it was spread extensively by African prostitutes from rural Congo, an almost uniquely heterosexual phenomenon.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Onofre [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#History
LOL, 1980 repeal. The Stonewall riots were in NYC in 1969 and after that the cops stopped busting up gay hookup spots. That's why NYC was a center for AIDS. I'm not saying gay bars should be illegal, but denying the causality is wishful thinking.
Watch "Midnight Cowboy" (1969) and "Cruising" (1980) to get a glimpse into how AIDS came to be.
Watch "Midnight Cowboy" (1969) and "Cruising" (1980) to get a glimpse into how AIDS came to be.
Hate for the sake of hate? You've clearly got issues.
One would hope in a place like HN one would not find people as bigoted as you are. You must be a very sad person. Lack of sexed allows spreading of HIV, not homosexuality.
Unprotected heterosexual sex is considerably more dangerous than male-male sex. It kills considerable more people. Pregnancy has historically been very dangerous, and even now is not without serious health risks.
I wondered. The only way I read this "pardon" is:
"We pardon you of having forced us to persecute you."
"We pardon you of having forced us to persecute you."
[deleted]
they should give an apology
75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned".
My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it.
[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t...
[2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as it deserves...
My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it.
[1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/t...
[2] I am not a lawyer, nor British, so give my understanding as much weight as it deserves...
I think you may have hit on the crux of it. If any stronger repudiation were offered, would that be the government opening itself up to 25000 expensive lawsuits?
[deleted]
I hope so, it should pay, and heavily. If it was my tax pound I'd support this. The minimum amount of harm this discrimination caused is pretty high, and there is little than can be done to correct this. Financial compensation is about the best thing actually possible, so do it while the victims are still alive. The lame option of waiting until 99% of the victims are dead, then offering some kind of pardon is vastly more likely however.
"If it was my tax pound I'd support this."
Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous.
Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.
Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous.
Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.
I agree that the goal is moving on. However, I don't think the best way to bridge is to fail to acknowledge our history.
To me, it's important for a society to explicitly acknowledge mistakes.
FWIW, I'm American, and I wish that our government would formally acknowledge people who have clearly been affected by less than fortuitous circumstances.
To me, it's important for a society to explicitly acknowledge mistakes.
FWIW, I'm American, and I wish that our government would formally acknowledge people who have clearly been affected by less than fortuitous circumstances.
Are there abused or disenfranchised groups you do support payments being made to as a form of compensation? Paying out clearly does nothing for Turing, I mean that payment to those still alive could be helpful. For example, the New Zealand government has paid out groups that suffered due to government action like land unfairly taken. I fully support this.
Sorry, I don't, because where does it end? IMHO, it's nothing more than a token gesture. Financial compensation won't change the wrong that has been done. It's superficial and ever so slightly patronising. It's symptomatic of the vile litigious happy culture that we find ourselves in.
A recent example of where the UK was, in my opinion, quite right in paying out to victims was to people who had been tortured by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
I would also support compensation for anyone who was a victim of extraordinary rendition through the UK and criminal prosecution of anyone who aided this ghastly practice.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037
I would also support compensation for anyone who was a victim of extraordinary rendition through the UK and criminal prosecution of anyone who aided this ghastly practice.
The NZ government continues to make payments to Maori (an indigenous people lostlogin refers to). Maori are in a socioeconomically inferior position overall, partly (largely?) as a consequence of European misdeeds less than two centuries ago. I think most people who know of the similar (but much worse) socioeconomic positions of the Australian Aborigines and native American people will probably agree making compensation is the right thing to do.
Suppose however that the Maori had a socioeconomically superior position. Would it still be the right thing to do to pay them for past misdeeds? Technically, I would say yes. Practically, probably not.
As an illustrative example, consider the way Chinese immigrants were treated during the gold rushes ~1850-1900. Though the situation is somewhat different; I'd contend that if Maori were being compensated only for past misdeeds, descendants of Chinese immigrants from that time should be also. (But of course Chinese people are in a higher socioeconomic group than Maori).
[Warning: speculation rife in the following paragraph] So, the NZ government pays Maori because it's a politically acceptable (politically beneficial, probably) way to provide Maori with some stimulus to increase their socioeconomic standing. I expect that had Maori been able to summon the socioeconomic standing (and corresponding political power) earlier they would've received compensation earlier. Had they never had a relatively lower socioeconomic standing they may never have felt aggrieved as a result of wrong-doings and not pursued payment at all.
An aside: Another complicating factor in the NZ situation is that the legal basis of Crown ownership of NZ is somewhat shaky. There appears to have been some "mistranslation" that occurred in the Treaty of Waitangi, meaning Maori believe they are the sovereign owners of NZ, while The Crown believes it is.
Suppose however that the Maori had a socioeconomically superior position. Would it still be the right thing to do to pay them for past misdeeds? Technically, I would say yes. Practically, probably not.
As an illustrative example, consider the way Chinese immigrants were treated during the gold rushes ~1850-1900. Though the situation is somewhat different; I'd contend that if Maori were being compensated only for past misdeeds, descendants of Chinese immigrants from that time should be also. (But of course Chinese people are in a higher socioeconomic group than Maori).
[Warning: speculation rife in the following paragraph] So, the NZ government pays Maori because it's a politically acceptable (politically beneficial, probably) way to provide Maori with some stimulus to increase their socioeconomic standing. I expect that had Maori been able to summon the socioeconomic standing (and corresponding political power) earlier they would've received compensation earlier. Had they never had a relatively lower socioeconomic standing they may never have felt aggrieved as a result of wrong-doings and not pursued payment at all.
An aside: Another complicating factor in the NZ situation is that the legal basis of Crown ownership of NZ is somewhat shaky. There appears to have been some "mistranslation" that occurred in the Treaty of Waitangi, meaning Maori believe they are the sovereign owners of NZ, while The Crown believes it is.
How far back would you be willing to go? The UK has been around a long time. Witch burnings in the middle ages? Land confiscation in Ireland in the 17th Century? Abuses of The East India Company in India? The Harrowing of the North by William the Conqueror in the 11th century?
We haven't finished figuring out how to sort out the mess that was the colonizing of New Zealand yet, but once we have worked through that, it might be useful to refer to when sorting out the earlier messes that the Empire (and earlier rulers) created!
Yes it is a terrible word to use, but these pardons have been issued to innocent people in the past and I suppose it has just stuck over time.
Something in what you wrote reminds me of the many men shot for "cowardice" during WWI, some of whom were pardoned[1].
Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock).
It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?).
I really don't wish to contradict the sentiment of your statement, but only to say that "justice" is sometimes a luxury, and one which we should try to provide for everyone.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hundreds-o...
Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock).
It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?).
I really don't wish to contradict the sentiment of your statement, but only to say that "justice" is sometimes a luxury, and one which we should try to provide for everyone.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hundreds-o...
That's only a fraction of the number of people killed in WWI just from being forced to fight, or stupidly run at enemy trenches.
Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single victim suffering, than being told "x number of people are suffering this fate".
Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single victim suffering, than being told "x number of people are suffering this fate".
> "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance
Because injustice implies the unjust decision made by someone in charge, and having an unjust law or person in charge is much worse then having an accident. Not only that, but it's something we have more control over, so it's rational to get more emotional about it.
Because injustice implies the unjust decision made by someone in charge, and having an unjust law or person in charge is much worse then having an accident. Not only that, but it's something we have more control over, so it's rational to get more emotional about it.
So much this. It drives me nuts that the narrative on this issue always seems to boil down to the idea that Turing somehow earned not being persecuted for being gay through his efforts in the war and the injustice was that the government didn't live up to its end of the bargain, not the fact that he and many others were driven to suicide or horrible lives by this terrible law.
It's symbolic. The pardon does absolutely zero for Turing himself - he's long gone. It's symbolic that society is progressing and saying "we don't agree with this thing we used to do".
I agree that this is the intent, but it doesn't take much reading (on this comment page or nearly any press article about it) to see that it's extremely common for people to think that the injustice was particularly strong in Turing's case because he was brilliant.
My issue is less with the intent of the pardon and more with how it's presented in the media and how people think about it.
My issue is less with the intent of the pardon and more with how it's presented in the media and how people think about it.
To give it a more positive spin: Turing's case highlights how not only unjust but simply stupid such prejudice is. His case provides a very public and undeniable example that keeps the issue in people's minds, essentially a form of martyrdom, highlighting how far we've come and (when you consider how much prejudice and related bad thinking is still common) how far we still need to go before we can truly consider ourselves civilised as a whole.
Also his brilliance does come into it once you consider the wider implications. What else could he have achieved (both for his own intellectual satisfaction and our eventual benefit) had he been allowed to continue his work as he wished? How many other people are out there (or were out there) who could have done great things but were not permitted to by society? While I agree that is is bad that we need him to stand as an example to highlight these issues, it is good that he does stand as that example to shine that light on the problem.
Also his brilliance does come into it once you consider the wider implications. What else could he have achieved (both for his own intellectual satisfaction and our eventual benefit) had he been allowed to continue his work as he wished? How many other people are out there (or were out there) who could have done great things but were not permitted to by society? While I agree that is is bad that we need him to stand as an example to highlight these issues, it is good that he does stand as that example to shine that light on the problem.
It's mostly because human beings feel more sympathy for a single victim who they know a lot about. I think the term is "Identifiable Victim Effect".
Except that's not what a pardon is.
This tweet pretty much sums up the whole problem with this pardon:
"So remember children-homosexuality is acceptable, but only if you also invent the computer & single-handedly defeat the Nazis" https://twitter.com/bristolpaul/status/415467991414083584
I think what's interesting here is that socially conservative forces were able to get a man chemically castrated despite having done such a service to his country.
Pardon everyone convicted under similar statues and knight Turing posthumously for his efforts during the war and his contributions to computer science.
I do not think it is possible to knight posthumously.
Give him an Oscar then.
An Oscar hardly seems like a fitting British commendation for someone that isn't an actor or director.
You are right, not only that but also the title of Knight ceases when one dies.
There are honours that do not expire, I'm sure something relevant can be found.
Though I think the fact we understand and appreciate the full magnitude of what he achieved in the time he had (even some of the general public with little technical interest are at least aware of his contribution to the war effort if not his contribution to information/computation/intelligence theory) is probably the best honour we can give him.
Though I think the fact we understand and appreciate the full magnitude of what he achieved in the time he had (even some of the general public with little technical interest are at least aware of his contribution to the war effort if not his contribution to information/computation/intelligence theory) is probably the best honour we can give him.
The House (and I) agree with you. I believe the hope is that this pardon of a well-known & loved figure in the UK will raise awareness in order to force the government to nullify all convictions resulting from this law.
Sixteen thousand of those men are still alive ... they can all now apply to have their convictions disregarded. I tried to amend it to extend this disregard posthumously to the 49,000 men similarly convicted but now dead...
The Government did not agree with us. They pointed out that, among other things, it would not always be possible in very old cases to know when sexual activity was non-consensual or under age. I think that the Government were wrong then and I think that they are wrong now.
Many of us—including the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I think—regard this Bill as in some sense a second- best or interim option, in that we would have preferred a measure that offered the same comfort and recompense to the families and admirers of any of the many thousands of other individuals, now deceased, who were convicted under the same law. Still, we are where we are, and in Turing’s case the facts and his character are well documented. I would hazard a guess that others whose family members were victims of the same obsolete law and cruel sentence would, albeit as second best, welcome a gesture towards an especially prominent but symbolically representative individual.
Sixteen thousand of those men are still alive ... they can all now apply to have their convictions disregarded. I tried to amend it to extend this disregard posthumously to the 49,000 men similarly convicted but now dead...
The Government did not agree with us. They pointed out that, among other things, it would not always be possible in very old cases to know when sexual activity was non-consensual or under age. I think that the Government were wrong then and I think that they are wrong now.
Many of us—including the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I think—regard this Bill as in some sense a second- best or interim option, in that we would have preferred a measure that offered the same comfort and recompense to the families and admirers of any of the many thousands of other individuals, now deceased, who were convicted under the same law. Still, we are where we are, and in Turing’s case the facts and his character are well documented. I would hazard a guess that others whose family members were victims of the same obsolete law and cruel sentence would, albeit as second best, welcome a gesture towards an especially prominent but symbolically representative individual.
All good; but curious: in Britain when cases are found to be tainted by prejudice, it isn't routine to throw them all out? Instead they are preserved in case the 'offender' had done something else too? Like maybe robbed a bank or cheated on taxes I guess (sarcasm).
> My understanding is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it.
The fact of a pardon neither implies that the law was wrong nor that it was correct.
A posthumous pardon is naturally of largely symbolic import, in this particular case, the Royal Pardon is a kind of symbolic capstone to the earlier apology by the previous government in which -- while it was directed to Turing -- condemned the execution of the law more generally (the Prime Minister, when issuing the apology, stated "Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."
The fact of a pardon neither implies that the law was wrong nor that it was correct.
A posthumous pardon is naturally of largely symbolic import, in this particular case, the Royal Pardon is a kind of symbolic capstone to the earlier apology by the previous government in which -- while it was directed to Turing -- condemned the execution of the law more generally (the Prime Minister, when issuing the apology, stated "Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."
I don't know what the legal definition is, but the popular usage definitely implies guilt. EG, when the President pardons a crony, everyone knows he's totally guilt of whatever he was convicted of and more.
Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims? If not, we could really use one.
There's a lot of that going around, and it'd be nice if governments had a word they should do more of.
Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims? If not, we could really use one.
There's a lot of that going around, and it'd be nice if governments had a word they should do more of.
> Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims?
It's called an apology, admission of guilt, and usually some reparations are involved.
It's called an apology, admission of guilt, and usually some reparations are involved.
The pardon does not imply the law (the Labouchere Amendment, 1885) was wrong, but the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which repealed it certainly does (or did).
The royals still referred to him as a faggot though.
The British government has taken steps to address teh 26,000 that are still alive [1]. While this should be automatic it is still a step towards progress.
[1] <http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/02/home-office-gay-s...
[1] <http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/02/home-office-gay-s...
It's a step. A few years ago, they apologized for it, and people responded by demanding a pardon. Now there's a pardon. Maybe in a few years they'll pardon and apologize to everybody else who was convicted under that law.
Only a time machine can change what happened, but every gesture is something. It can't be made right, but acknowledgement of the wrong is still good.
Only a time machine can change what happened, but every gesture is something. It can't be made right, but acknowledgement of the wrong is still good.
> 75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1]
They can apply to have their convictions disregarded, though. (It's also 16,000 of them.)
Yeah, not quite the same, but better than I expected honestly. :)
They can apply to have their convictions disregarded, though. (It's also 16,000 of them.)
Yeah, not quite the same, but better than I expected honestly. :)
Is there some LGBT organization in the UK who could pull off publicly granting a pardon to the government for its' treatment of Alan Turing?
The British state already formally apologized five years ago, under Gordon Brown, for Alan Turing's barbaric treatment. I can't see how a pardon adds anything to that. The best response is just to treat people humanely in the present.
The apology was "We're sorry. The conviction still stands, however". The pardon takes care of the latter.
Turing died only a few years before the emergence of high level languages. I have often wondered if he would go for FORTRAN or LISP.
I like to think the answer would have been "both": Lisp for power and elegance, and Fortran for speed.
BBC please do not make any of the royal drama news headlines.
Thought I'd stick this link here - great place. http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk
Last time I was there, 10 or 15 years ago, they were redecorating the house (can you call it that?). They had a load of really old fittings like taps etc in a skip. I still regret not asking if I could take one or 2. Having a few taps from that amazing place would be so great. I spent days of time there over the course of a year, and met a few of the people who worked their who knew Turing (by sight, not personally). You can see Turing's room at the place too. It was fascinating to talk to people who worked there during the amazing period Turing worked through.
Lots of complaining on here, but I was glad to see it.
The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime.
It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.
The government certainly didn't have to. It doesn't have to pardon everyone convicted of a crime that is no longer a crime.
It was a good thing to do for a good man, and I commend them.
There have been countless people prosecuted due to unjust laws; society changes, and as that happens laws change.
Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them should.
Every single one of those people should be given a pardon, or none of them should.
About f*cking time, but is it enough? No, but hopefully we won't need to worry about things like this in the future. Progress is progress and I'll take it.
The infinite tape of justice winds slowly, but grinds exceedingly fine.
Scumbag Hacker News: Admires spies only after they're dead.
You really compare the NSA to activities at Bletchley Park, fighting Nazis?
Unfortunately, that is just what the British intelligence community are doing over here. It's a fucking disgrace, but I wonder if the timing of this pardon is because of that. They had the chance to do this a year ago, but didn't.
NSA are fighting terrorism, which probably includes some Nazis somewhere in the mix. That aside it does seem the current groundswell of public opinion is firmly against all spying?
SO MUCH EDGE
You know, I was just reading a WSJ special on how returning PTSD-afflicted veterans were lobotomized...
Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives me those same chills.
What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve things even further, and to keep the momentum going.
Reading back on what happened to Turing and countless other homosexuals gives me those same chills.
What a simple pleasure it is to live in the era we do now. No, not everything is perfect, but so much has improved, and it's up to all of us to improve things even further, and to keep the momentum going.
59 years late.
It would have been better if he was still alive when he was pardoned...
It seems to me that the fitting thing to be issued here is an apology, not a pardon.
They already did that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice system.
And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then.
Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials.
If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that.
(1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.
And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then.
Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials.
If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that.
(1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.
> They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice system.
Does that actually work, though? I gave this some thought today, and I wondered what the ramifications were for having to unpick 100s of years of perhaps other law and cases and convictions, including those where maybe a prior conviction under the act led to X led to Y... and then there is all the conjoined case law. This naive guy suspects it is not as simple as it sounds.
Does that actually work, though? I gave this some thought today, and I wondered what the ramifications were for having to unpick 100s of years of perhaps other law and cases and convictions, including those where maybe a prior conviction under the act led to X led to Y... and then there is all the conjoined case law. This naive guy suspects it is not as simple as it sounds.
Turing often seems to get most of the credit for ending the war early (probably due to the injustice he suffered), but we shouldn't forget others suffered in different ways.
Tommy Flowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers), who arguably created the first electronic computer to decrypt the Lorenz cypher was just as important and his work was not acknowledged until the 1970s.
Flowers wanted to create a computer after the war but the Bank of England wouldn't lend him the money because they didn't believe it was possible and he couldn't disclose he'd already done it due to official secrets act.
Tommy Flowers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Flowers), who arguably created the first electronic computer to decrypt the Lorenz cypher was just as important and his work was not acknowledged until the 1970s.
Flowers wanted to create a computer after the war but the Bank of England wouldn't lend him the money because they didn't believe it was possible and he couldn't disclose he'd already done it due to official secrets act.
This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic.
Cameron expended a great deal of political capital, which won't have won him any votes because "TORRIEESS", on same-sex marriage. Haters be hatin', and sure Cameron has done some stupid things, but don't let your class-war prejudices blind you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-...
Cameron expended a great deal of political capital, which won't have won him any votes because "TORRIEESS", on same-sex marriage. Haters be hatin', and sure Cameron has done some stupid things, but don't let your class-war prejudices blind you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10200636/I-want-to-...
"What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane."
It's insane to pardon a dead person in the first place but, for the currently convicted, why would that be insane? Seems like a massive reduction in sentencing should at least be considered. Sure, they broke a law, but most of us do that everyday. Maybe the reverse wouldn't be so bad either. Could stop a lot of stupid laws from passing in the first place.
It's insane to pardon a dead person in the first place but, for the currently convicted, why would that be insane? Seems like a massive reduction in sentencing should at least be considered. Sure, they broke a law, but most of us do that everyday. Maybe the reverse wouldn't be so bad either. Could stop a lot of stupid laws from passing in the first place.
I find it useful to ignore what motivations people have and focus on what they actually do. This is obviously a good thing - it was an immoral law and Turing deserves a pardon.
I also find it useful to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because Turing deserves even more honors and everyone prosecuted by that evil law deserves to be pardoned doesn't mean that we can't celebrate this one step.
Also, it's kind of selfish (even though he's dead) to feel that the conviction should have stood. This corrects an injustice, and it must be done, regardless of the arguable societal benefits otherwise.
I also find it useful to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because Turing deserves even more honors and everyone prosecuted by that evil law deserves to be pardoned doesn't mean that we can't celebrate this one step.
Also, it's kind of selfish (even though he's dead) to feel that the conviction should have stood. This corrects an injustice, and it must be done, regardless of the arguable societal benefits otherwise.
They should give a royal apology
Yes, they apologized 5 years ago, and now there's a pardon. As an important abolitionist from my country once wrote, "Justice that is late is not justice".
Wait. Someone who has a title and shitloads of money just because they were born is pardoning one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, as an act of kindness?
How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?
How does such an undeserving leftover of the middle ages even have a say in this?
You're misunderstanding the power that the Queen has. Just because it's a 'Royal pardon', it doesn't mean that she actually pushed for it. The opposite is true, in fact (the Queen is a symbolic head of state, and does not interfere politically - anything you hear the Queen doing is almost certainly at the request of the UK government).
Granted. But still, symbolically, that's how it sounds, so maybe there's a problem with this system?
What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
What I mean is that even if it's done at the request of the government, that's only a description of the political backstage, but in public it is expressed as the monarchy's doing ("royal" pardon).
> so maybe there's a problem with this system?
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
There are many problems. When you find a better system to replace it with, then let us know. Until then throwing away a millenia of history so we can have President Cameron sounds like hell to me.
Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to troll. It's just that I would have a really hard time living in a country where such privileges by birth exist.
Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads of states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of reasons for this.
And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not elected. Democracy has its limits :-)
And by the way, if you think is undemocratic to have an unelected head of state, just think about the reasons that supreme court members are not elected. Democracy has its limits :-)
> Sorry to tell you, but this kind of system does not exist in reality. Heads of states in all States are above some laws and there are plentiful of reasons for this.
But they are not so by birth, that was my point.
>supreme court members are not elected
I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by right of their birth, but they are chosen by elected people.
But they are not so by birth, that was my point.
>supreme court members are not elected
I assume you are talking about the US? In any case, they are not nominated by right of their birth, but they are chosen by elected people.
> Well, any democratic system in which no citizen is institutionally above every other citizen by mere reason of being born certainly seems better to me.
Sounds good to me, but the Monarchy isn't a particularly big part of that. Once we've solved or made at least some progress on fixing social mobility we can bother to get rid of powerless figureheads that bring us only profit.
Sounds good to me, but the Monarchy isn't a particularly big part of that. Once we've solved or made at least some progress on fixing social mobility we can bother to get rid of powerless figureheads that bring us only profit.
The actual pardon: http://cryptome.org/2013/12/turing-pardon.pdf
Instead of pardoning bullshit get him a chapter in elementary school history books. Chapter about a man, who greatly contributed to modern science and the war effort and was prosecuted by bigoted fanatics running the country. Then warn about similar attitudes displayed today and teach the children to recognize them along with their gloomy consequences.
That would do some actual good instead of insignificant PR gesture of pardoning.
Have we ruled out the possibility that the UK government is more desperate to legitimize code breaking than to exonerate a mistreated war hero?
I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.
I don't think that's the case, but these days it's getting harder to be sure.
Anyone know a good movie/book on his life?
Unrelated to the topic, but:
> He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives.
Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.
> He said the research Turing carried out during the war at Bletchley Park undoubtedly shortened the conflict and saved thousands of lives.
Clear example of "history is written by the victors". The Allies were as guilty in the war as the other side. Neither side's goal was to "shorten the conflict and save lives" but to "defeat the other side" with no regards to human life.
What I find most intriguing about this is the how a law that was enforced only 50 years ago has so quickly become abhorrent to the majority of the population. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years.
Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict.
(Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)
Copyright and patent laws, and laws used against Snowden's whistle blowing are some obvious ones that are due for changes, but what's more interesting is if history continues to repeat itself it seems likely that some things we consider wrong now will become acceptable in the near future and the reverse is also true. This is much harder to predict.
(Humans driving cars is a reverse example. I think in the next 50 years it will become illegal for humans to drive cars manually except on private racing circuits)
I doubt that we would need to make human driving illegal. More likely automated cars become so popular and cheap that a generation grows up without learning how to drive manually and outside of a subset of enthusiasts human driven cars simply start to disappear from the market.
We already have driving assistance systems like ABS and computers which will automatically apply brakes which can reduce the risk of accidents but we don't mandate that all vehicles on the road use them.
We already have driving assistance systems like ABS and computers which will automatically apply brakes which can reduce the risk of accidents but we don't mandate that all vehicles on the road use them.
Computer breaking is still relatively new. Give the law time to catch up. Seatbelts were optional when I was a child, but mandatory now (UK).
But yes, I do agree. Human driving may well just become unpopular rather than illegal.
But yes, I do agree. Human driving may well just become unpopular rather than illegal.
The cases you cite seem fundamentally different from the anti-gay laws under discussion. Copyright and patent laws, even if we look back and say they were stupid, we would still be able to point to the problems that they were designed to solve (of which they have solved somewhat), and view them as a reasonable attempt. Similarly, we would recognize that humans driving cars was okay not because of of a poor moral system, but rather because we had no better alternative.
I suspect that some of the areas we will look back on in a similar way are drug laws and sex laws (we still have prostitution, child porn, and statutory rape, all of which seem immoral only in a cultural sense).
I suspect that some of the areas we will look back on in a similar way are drug laws and sex laws (we still have prostitution, child porn, and statutory rape, all of which seem immoral only in a cultural sense).
I think trans rights are something that in 50 years time will be like gay rights now. We'll look back 50 years to today and think the treatment by society of trans people was barbaric.
In 50 years time Chelsea Manning might get an apology because medication she needed wasn't given to her in prison.
In 50 years time Chelsea Manning might get an apology because medication she needed wasn't given to her in prison.
We can only hope.
The trend is that certain ideas are offensive and are therefore kept censored or ridiculed, until people can overlook those societal views of past generations and assess the ideas with a fresh perspective, at which point they become accepted.
There are things today which if you say you might lose friends over, but I am certain it's a case of nation-wide groupthink. Evidence? In other parts of the world these ideas are widely accepted already.
There are things today which if you say you might lose friends over, but I am certain it's a case of nation-wide groupthink. Evidence? In other parts of the world these ideas are widely accepted already.
> It's an interesting thought experiment to consider which laws we routinely use today to punish people will become morally unacceptable in the next 50 years.
It's also an interesting thought experiment to consider whether beliefs we deeply and routinely hold today will become as morally unacceptable as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and ought to be punished.
For example, what if it becomes wrong to believe in meritocracy? If in fifty years, everyone from scientists to politicians to the media blasts the message that it's wrong and hurtful to heap prestige, financial rewards, etc. on brilliant hackers and successful entrepreneurs?
Presumably many HN'ers strongly believe in meritocracy and point out historical examples of stagnation in non-meritocratic societies, mathematical/economic arguments why meritocracy is good, etc.
What if anyone who sincerely believes in meritocracy, and makes these kinds of logical and data-backed arguments in favor of meritocracy, is met the same way that today anyone is met who argues against the liberalization of our treatment of homosexuality?
Please, treat people who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong the way you would want believers in meritocracy to be treated in the hypothetical world I've laid out. First, because you want a civilized precedent for dealing with distasteful beliefs, to reduce the downside if your own beliefs will one day be regarded as distasteful. Second, it simply makes the pro-gay argument look weak if the best way you can deal with opponents is call them names like "bigot," or threaten to blacklist them and destroy their livelihood.
Another fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/
It's also an interesting thought experiment to consider whether beliefs we deeply and routinely hold today will become as morally unacceptable as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and ought to be punished.
For example, what if it becomes wrong to believe in meritocracy? If in fifty years, everyone from scientists to politicians to the media blasts the message that it's wrong and hurtful to heap prestige, financial rewards, etc. on brilliant hackers and successful entrepreneurs?
Presumably many HN'ers strongly believe in meritocracy and point out historical examples of stagnation in non-meritocratic societies, mathematical/economic arguments why meritocracy is good, etc.
What if anyone who sincerely believes in meritocracy, and makes these kinds of logical and data-backed arguments in favor of meritocracy, is met the same way that today anyone is met who argues against the liberalization of our treatment of homosexuality?
Please, treat people who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong the way you would want believers in meritocracy to be treated in the hypothetical world I've laid out. First, because you want a civilized precedent for dealing with distasteful beliefs, to reduce the downside if your own beliefs will one day be regarded as distasteful. Second, it simply makes the pro-gay argument look weak if the best way you can deal with opponents is call them names like "bigot," or threaten to blacklist them and destroy their livelihood.
Another fun thought experiment: s/bigot/heretic/
Finally.
Way too little, way too late.
The queen was already reigning when Alan Turing was brought to trail.
May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.
May be the queen is who needs to be pardoned.
Let this be a reminder to all hackers and geniuses out there: protect yourself from your society. You exist purely at the mercy of your physical realm. It does not matter how essential your discoveries, how profitable, how useful to mankind, how breathtaking. If you are perceived as being a risk (through something simple like your sexuality) you will be ground to dust. The decision will be made (perhaps justifiably) but it will be executed by the worst sort of petty human being: bureaucrats, under achievers, jealous men and beasts in human form who have been handed down power by the state. They will unleash a torrent of hellfire in your life.
This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park, tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been given.
Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out.
The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts during the war.
The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon" and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.
This beast does not discriminate: weather a gathering of Sikhs in a park, tribes of Africans or a sole genius with an arguably significant contribution to the war effort - to the beast they are all one once the order has been given.
Always ensure you have some form of protection and a way out.
The British establishment should be ashamed of themselves. They have tolerated homosexuality for centuries among the upper classes up to and including the royals. To grind down a man on the level of Turing with for such an absurd reason is an act of criminal stupidity. All the more so after his efforts during the war.
The computer science community all the world over should reject this "pardon" and ask the queen to stuff it up her posterior.
http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2013/07/puttin...