Bitcoin Forum

Since this seems like the kind of crowd that would be more inclined to push further down the list, I'd be interested in seeing what the public opinion is here and what arguments people can raise about where to draw the line.

In this poll, do you mean "should be banned by the state, enforced by violence", or do you mean "should be banned by a forum owner, by revoking access to the forum"?

There's a big difference. In the second case, only the forum owner's vote is relevant.

Its interesting that you don't have a "Who cares what colour peoples' eyes are?" option.  A poll with no valid options is hardly going to produce valid data.

The color of the eyes isn't the point, it's the scenario. Replace it with creed, color, religion, whatever you like.

This is an interesting thought exercise.

Making a criminal contract is criminal by itself. You can't obviously make a contract on somebody's life. (EDIT: without that person's agreement, of course)
A contract proposition, as in the last statement, could be seen as a threat. A threat of violence is also a violation of the non aggression principle. (e.g., if you shoot towards a crowd but don't hit anyone, you're still acting criminally).

What makes this poll an interesting thought exercise is the fact that, the way the last statement is made, it does indeed create a criminal contract proposition, so, a threat, but to no specific victim.
Perhaps any blue-eyed person could claim to be a victim of such threat and initiate aggression against such contract proposition. I would argue for that. Again, consider the example of the guy who shoots towards a crowd. Even if he doesn't hit anyone, everybody on that crowd was threatened by him. Everybody on the crowd could claim to be a victim.

No rules, just guns. Legalize it all and let the chips fall where they may.

Be careful of a substitution fallacy here. It's interesting the poll chooses blue-eyed people here. Eye color is not a choice. Expressing emotion, positive or negative, while it doesn't add weight to the argument itself, emphasizes one's position and often belies their beliefs.

Calling to action or suggesting to cause harm OTOH is often considered a criminal act. This goes beyond expressing opinion.


I'd like to see historical evidence of anarchists try to organize an army to avoid getting wiped out.

Really? Over 50% think it would be ok to pay someone to kill blue eyed people?

I think what it means is that over 50% of the people say that one should be "banned" for approving of all of the above.

If you believe in Freedom of speech you would have to let all these items except for the last(paying to have someone off'ed.) If you not allowed to voice an opinion about wanting some one dead then you don't have freedom of speech. Such a touchy topic love it.

One could say "I would support someone financially that is willing to organize people to kill blue-eyed people." Should that be considered acceptable as free speech?

That option was not in the poll. The poll option was for uttering the statement, not for paying someone to kill blue-eyed people.

"If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins."

Isn't this speech already banned as an overt act in a conspiracy to commit homicide?

Wikipedia: Criminal law ....  may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no .... requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.

Anyway, I picked it to be banned.

Correct!

Yes this is an important distinction. I refuse to answer until this is clarified.

I see.  The blue eyes is irrelevant.  There several incitement to violence examples there that are banned as part of normal criminal law but I can only select one. 

I meant banned by the state (or treated as a type of aggression).

Couldn't you argue that the second last statement is rewarding the killer with a higher social position with respect to you, which, if the killer values it (which he clearly does if he's willing to commit murder for it), is just as much a form of payment as money is?

Exactly. It's intended to be a generic "oppress the involuntary minority" scenario.

I gotta say I think the speech should be legal. I don't think the cost of giving the state this tool of arresting people for hate speech is worth the benefit of preventing the small number of times this may happen, or will even be effective. Someone can simply start a rumor there is a bounty on someones head and that may be enough to incite violence anyway (e.g. MLK).

An attempt should be made so that the penalties for actually killing someone (times the probability of getting caught) should far outweigh the benefit any amount of money would bring. Then again, the probabilities and benefits will be subjective so it is probably impossible to ensure this... I think that's the best you can do though.

I believe that could still be seen as a criminal contract proposition, therefore a threat. Even though the terms of the contract are not fully specified, the intention to perform such contract is clear.

ITT: say when government (or "any protection agency") should (directly or otherwise) punish people for saying they'll (directly or otherwise) punish people.

Its very hard to make rules that allow for the gradations of language between "I hate blue eyed people" and "Lets kill the blue eyed people."  Luckily its not a new problem and we have centuries of attempts that failed to get it right as well as our existing laws to show practical rules that work.  Its not that its law that makes it useful - its that it represents the best efforts of people who care about this stuff.

I haven't taken this poll because it is a loaded question much like "Do you still beat your wife?" There is no good option answer.

I think you might be missing the point. It's a poll to see where your morals think free speech should be limited at.

I believe that expressing opinions and calling to action are two different things. If a highly charismatic person suggests murder (like Charlie Manson) it is worse than someone that offers a bounty for murder which may or may not be taken. So both are equally bad and have been punished. Not liking people is not a crime, just irrational. Irrational people can be a problem, but they are not often criminals.

I think it should be reworded as such:

Question:    Which of the following statements do you believe is the limit at which should not be punishable by the state and anything below which should?
I don't like people with blue eyes.
People with blue eyes have a negative impact on society.
The world would be better off without people with blue eyes.
I think people with blue eyes should leave the country or kill themselves.
I approve of people doing something (or "People should do something") to push against those blue-eyed scum.
I approve of people going out and killing those blue-eyed scum.
You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.
If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.
None of the above.

And it seems the plurality here believes its fine to pay for killing a human being. 

+1 Holliday

What it seems is that you have some serious comprehension limitations - and they are not language related.

Also, the poll is asking whether speaking should be responded to with violence. Real, physical violence. No matter how abhorrent someone might consider speaking words to be, they might consider a violent response to be even more abhorrent.

If someone in my community were to offer to pay money for blue-eyed people to be killed, I would not want that person violently attacked. But I would certainly wish and hope that my community would want to address the problem in non-violent ways. For example: find out why the person hates blue eyes and see if the issue can be resolved, or find a way to prevent the killing.

In any case, a violent response is counter-productive. It just makes the haters of blue-eyed people more resolute in their ambition to kill them. Much better to back off from escalating the violence, defuse the situation and attempt to resolve it, and let the whole idea of hatred towards blue-eyes come to be seen as moronic rather than heroic.

If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.    - 13 (35.1%)
All of the above should be legal.    - 15 (40.5%)


Combined total of 75% believe it should be legal to pay for a killing. 

+100

No... the poll is about being able to make the statements.

75% of people believe you (Hawker) should not receive a violent response since you (Hawker) just made those statements.

If I offer to pay someone to murder, that is conspiracy to murder.  And 75% of respondents believe that should be legal.

Pathetic you even try to defend it.

I think there is still a lot of "not seeing eye to eye" here. Maybe that's why "freedom of speech" is just not what it used to be.

This country has gone straight down the drain. By morals, ethics, finances ..etc.

Everybody has forgotten are core. So many kiddlets fail history/gov/polisci classes and they become walking meatbags devoid of any real thought of their own.

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?

"Who said I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

When it comes down to violence its plain and simple, when you deprive somebody of the right to life/liberty, then its unconstitutional (hence illegal).

EDIT: The poll results say alot about the collection of minds in the bitcoin community.

Snapman, Voltaire was not speaking about paying people to kill Jews; he was struggling against anti-semitism in France in the late 1800s.  

If you offer to pay to kill people, that is conspiracy to murder.  You are delusional if you think that being arrested for paying to have your girlfriend shot is a breach of your freedom.

I used it as reference as our nation adapted the idea.


Wtf.. its depriving somebody else of their right. I never said anything about "a breach of your freedom" (clean out your fucking ears). You gave that up when you handed 20 large to some thug to put a .22 in your girlfriends head.

Question is about:
1) Saying something (making an offer)

Now people are talking about:
2) Actually paying someone (fulfilling your end of the contract)

Both of these are different from:
3) Actually doing it.

I think the line should be drawn at #2. Perhaps at #1.5 if a contract is formed but pay comes after the violence.

No - you give up your freedom when you suggest that someone kill your girlfriend.  Free speech does not include planning murder.  By the time you are handing over the payment, you have left your rights to free speech and free movement long long behind and depending on where you live, you may also have lost your right to life.

In this world, surely you can find a more worthwhile issue to call a loss of liberty than being deprived of the "right" to offer people money to kill your girlfriend?

So do you the take side effects of this type of law into account at all? Or is it just you don't like that someone threatens someone else so there should be a law against it?

I think you messed up with the numbers here a bit.
Only 36% of people suggest that everything of the above should be legal, not 75%.
The rest 64% suggest that certain statements and all below (except the last one) should be banned/punished.
So the second to last statement which offers the payment is OPPOSED by 64% of voters here.

This topic is interesting, what if we consider freedom of speech as the method to spread the information about the intent of an individual.
So basically by allowing a person to communicate freely about offering a payment for killing blue-eyed people we let the society know about his intention and allow it (society) to handle the situation in a non-violent way (I support ribuck here).

So would it be better if that person would secretly made an offer and no one would ever know why blue-eyed people are getting killed?
Also is there difference here between public speech and free speech? If I make an offer to somebody by sending coded messages is it still a free speech?

To threaten an innocent is a violation of the non aggression principle. It is unethical, and the use of force to repeal the threat is ethically justified (whether it is the best approach is another question).

A criminal contract proposition is pretty much a threat against the victims of the contract.

Please, keep in mind this whole topic is pure intellectual masturbation. No sane person would ever publicly propose an assassination contract. It would either be anonymous or entirely done in secret.

That said, I believe the reasoning you're making applies against "disgusting" speeches in a sense. Like, let racists express their racism, so we can identify and avoid them, for example. In this case I believe many would do it publicly.

You might want to add something about making it legal to take out a fire and life insurance policy against the blue eyed person you would offer to pay to have killed.

Words are not unconnected to the world we live in.  The words "I will pay you 200 Bitcoin to kill my girlfriend" are not the same as "Wow I love ponies." 

And the words "I will pay you to kill someone" are examples of words that have consequences.  If you say them, and all goes well, you get someone you dislike killed.

And 72% of the people who voted are ok with that being legal.

You seriously have comprehension issues. Look again, only 34% of people voted for "None of the above".
All others think you cannot propose a criminal contract.

They voted for ALL of the above to be legal.  

Add the 40% who think that ordering a killing is fine to the 33% who say that its fine as are all the other options.  Thats 74%.

Correct me if I am wrong.  

You're still looking at the poll wrong.

I voted for: If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.

The reason is because I believe THAT is the kind of speech that should be banned.

Everything above it, well, whatever. Some of those other statements are more disturbing than others, and the "you should kill..." statement would make me take some sort of non-violent action, but those statements above my choice shouldn't be crimes for speaking them.

But saying "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" SHOULD be a crime. To say that (IMO, perhaps not legally as far as the definition goes) is attempted murder.

I see. Hmmmm.


So on your reading, 33.3% of the voters are OK with offering to pay someone to kill, and 40% are OK with instructing a specific person to kill.

Thanks for clearing that up.

OK with, no. Think it's not automatically a crime, correct.

The 13.3% choice, as I said, is disturbing, in part because of the trickiness of it. If it's something said by a mafia boss to one of his hitmen, then the implications are much different (i.e., criminal at that point) than if it's something some frustrated racist says to a friend to see what the reaction is (and I don't know where you live, but from my perspective, criminalizing that speech outright in some parts of the US will only lead to a lot of wasted resources, good intentions aside.)

If I heard someone say that, I'd immediately try to determine how much of it was a jest. Even as a 4chan-level childish "joke" it warrants a response, but if the person is serious (but has no power to compel or attempt to incentivize [specific person] and no ability to profit) then some more serious non-violent action is warranted.

I totally get someone thinking that the statement should warrant a potentially violent response on its own. I just think it's too much of a grey area to ban the speech itself as speech; the repercussions of the banning would be worse than the speech itself would tend to be.

It's very different. In your example we're probably talking about a contractual undertaking rather than "speech".

Sorry for spoiling your poll by intentionally ticking the wrong box.  ;D

I see what you mean westkybitcoins.

It is easy to forget that laws are often later used for reasons beyond the scope of their original purpose. I think it is important to include this "misuse" factor when determining what laws should or shouldn't be on the books. Not to mention the possible waste of resources in tracking down every asshole who threatens someone on the internet. Law is not morality.

You seemed to be framing it using legal terms (specific intent, conspiracy to murder). But yea, all laws will have unintended consequences. Just because you don't think anyone should be allowed to do something doesn't mean you need to think there should be a law against it.

These are contracts. Words can be contracts, recorded, and be judged by your peers. This poll is meaningless. I offered a fix that would make it somewhat useful, but was ignored. I think most people will refuse to accept this poll as it is so full of fallacies, it's utterly ridiculous and would be dismissed by any serious ethics discussion.

I think maybe english isn't your first language? That is what the original question asked (besides "the state" part).

I'm not sure how you say no serious ethics discussion would include this question when it's meaning was interpreted by the majority of people to be exactly what you proposed. There was just a miscommunication between the OP and you due to the (apparently) ambiguous wording.

Just because death threats are banned those not mean you have to hunt down everyone making threats over the internet ..
But too allow someone to yell out at a marked place: "I offer 200 bitcoin for each blue eyed person you kill. Contact me for your payment pluss proof."  I just don't see how that is "free speech".

OK, here's the question.
Which of the following statements do you believe is the limit at which should not be punishable by the state? By expressing a limit, it's not a false dichotomy of an all or nothing choice. For instance, I don't have a problem with someone singing a song that "I hate ****." Hate is as meaningless word anyway. If I said I hate blue eyes, that would not make a good argument, so I don't say such things. If someone does say that, I would be willing to listen to their argument why they would say such a thing before judging (and probably laughing at) them. I will not tolerate anyone advocating to murder without presenting an argument of threat. If someone does say that, I will listen to their reasoning to see if there is a legitimate threat, but if not, then corrections are in order. If someone calls to action without going through that process, then they themselves are a threat and should be sanctioned. The OP is a slippery slope. The OP is obviously promoting the notion that running your mouth off is considered free speech. In the words of Harlan Ellison, "Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks."

Of course they can. For example, the statements were made in the formulation of this poll, yet no-one thinks the pollster was trying to form a contract.

You can go to any pub in my city on a Friday or Saturday night, and you will hear statements such as these, and it's obvious that it's rhetoric rather than an offer to contract.

WTF kind of neighborhood do you live in?

Person A: "I will give 200 BTC to anyone who kills blue eyed people"
Person B kills 5 blue eyed people.
Person B: "OK. Done. Now give me the BTC"
Person A: "No, sorry. Obviously it was only a joke."

That's the reason why Person A should be punished. Obvious jokes are not alyways obvious.

I am missing an option:

If you, [specific person], don't kill a blue-eyed person right now, I'll kill you, and after that I'll let someone else kill a blue-eyed person.

For most things, I am quite a free-speech fundamentalist, but this one makes me doubt, since, if [specific person] believes the threat, it effectively removes choice from him, and turns him from an ethical being into an instrument of murder. This means that the choice, and hence responsibility, is shifted from [specific person] to the person who made the threat. This is different from the 200 Bitcoin example, because that would still leave choice to [specific person].

So, saying the above is, IMHO, an attempt of murder, using [specific person] as an instrument of murder. If [specific person] actually kills a blue-eyed person, I think the punishment for the murder should be shared between the two. I haven't completely figured out how it should be shared: I think it all depends on the alternatives that are available to [specific person]: more choice means more responsibility. Those alternatives are not necessarily limited to what he has been told to do.

In an extreme case, the 200 Bitcoin example could be equivalent, e.g. if [specific person] needs those 200 Bitcoins to survive, and has no more ethical means of obtaining them. I assumed this was not the case.

I expected this response. Yes, [specific person] still has a choice. But can you blame him for the murder, if there really is no other option, such as removing the threat? I'd say most people would would rather kill another person (not if it's their daughter, but that was not the question) than being killed (although I could be wrong on that). That doesn't make it right, but it does mean that the threat can reliably turn a human being into a murder weapon. So, it does mean that more responsibility lies in the hands of the person who made the threat.

wow.. interesting question.. didn't vote though, because I am in doubts.

free speech in its extreme could have negative consequences.. so should we rather fight consequences or freedom of speech that causes them?

even if it was a joke about 200 bitcoins.. it could be misunderstood by killer. in fact, the public message doesn't need even to mention blue-eyed people or bitcoins.. literally any message being exposed to billions of people can cause some random crazy guy to pick up a gun and commit a murder.

and both (the 'joker' and the 'killer') could have moral justifications for their actions (even though most of you wouldn't agree with them).

if nobody enforces common moral and everybody supports free speech in its extreme, then probably this should be considered to be "OK situation" (you know.. different people have different moral.. it's a pity, of course, that they ate your leg.. but that's how they live.. and you better don't go there and protect yourself)

it sounds scary, but maybe our world is much more scary (we just prefer not to think about it).

I'm amazed.

You guys really are debating whether its OK to incite someone to murder or to tell someone you will pay them to murder.

A murder is just an example. Just replace "murder" with "having homosexual contact" or "denying God" or anything else... There are people that think that murder is not as bad as the latter two...

75% think this is OK.

And the best excuse you can come up with is "Murder is just an example - some people think homosexuality is just as bad."

Even if you consider this "conspiracy" or "incitement" and/or a form of aggression, there is still the principle of proportional response to consider. How would one defend the claim that violence, of any sort, is a proportional response to a spoken statement, however threatening?

Threats matter when it comes to contracts because contracts agreed to under duress are void. They also matter when it comes to self-defense, as one consideration in determining whether there is an imminent risk of irreversible harm. Outside of those domains, only deliberate harm can justify a violent response, because only then is a violent response proportional to the offense.

If someone is organising a murder, violence is a proportional response.  There is no ethical rule that says you can defend yourself against the person killing you but not against the person hiring people to kill you. 

Very convincing argument. So I am still in doubts..

1. If Alice hires Bob to kill Tom, then Alice is obviously responsible for murder (as Bob is).
2. If Alice says Tom doesn't deserve to live and Bob kills Tom, then... Is she responsible?
3. If Alice says she doesn't like Tom any more, and Bob kills Tom...

Update:


Or maybe not.... Maybe organizing protection (such as talking to a person, calling police, buying a gun, escaping) is a proportional response.

I disagree. If they "organized" it, but didn't actually commit the murder, then any violent response is proportional only to an action (actual murder, not just offering money to someone else to commit murder) which the target of the response never took. Naturally, if you chose to "organize" a murder of your own in response it would be governed by the same rules, so you are free to respond in kind. However, anyone who chooses to accept your hit job would be acting just as aggressively as whoever chose to accept theirs; they could not claim self-defense, even as your agent, any more than the first party's hit man could shift the blame onto his employer.

What you are saying is that its wrong to forbid someone ordering a killing but perfectly ok to organise a killing yourself.  So if the intended victim tries to retaliate, they are morally equal to the person who organised the killing.

Gah, morals/=law.

You keep saying this.

75% think there should be no law banning the statement.

I would wager the percent of people on this forum that "think it's OK" would be lower than the general population of any given society.

The difference is, most people on this forum don't believe a law should exist just because they don't think something is OK. Consider: in a forum full of committed pacifists, the number of people who would not agree with a law banning the statement would be 100%.

Well I can agree with you on that.  75% of respondents think there should be no law against ordering a killing or paying for a killing. 

So even if someone walks up to you with a gun clearly in his pocket (assume that such gun carrying is normal and acceptable where you live) and says "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" it's not OK to attack him first? I'm all for free speech, but once you start taking things this far and outlawing preemptive strikes I really think we're entering into "evil will always defeat good because good is dumb" territory.

I doubt it. She doesn't really want to kill you, she just really needs your money (that's why she takes the risk of threatening you). Anyway it is more rational to give her $200 than to risk your life.

Its really your position that someone with a gun saying "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" is covered by free speech?

Almost all crimes have 2 parts; the guilty act and the guilty intent.  "Actus reus et mens rea."

If you say "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" and you mean it, both the guilty act and guilty intent are there.  It doesn't matter if the person you said it to is an undercover policeman.  The words you said are a criminal act.

If you say "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" and you are saying it as an actor in a play, then there is no intent.  No crime.

This is not groundbreaking stuff.  Its not limited to speech either.  I don't understand why you are hung up on intent.  Almost all crimes require the state to prove intent.

One day I read about killing blue-eyed people in this thread, the other day I watch video about unusual chinese guy with blue eyes and the second top comment is about killing for them. This is creepy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfs0R-7cS_s

Hope I'm not gonna have nightmares over this.

75% of the people here believe there should be no law against ordering a killing and you are deluding yourself if you are making excuses "maybe they don't think the guy really means it." 

"Which of the following is the limit statements below and including which should be punished by the state (or otherwise justifiably responded to with violent force) and statements above which should be allowed? "

Unless the OP meant some weird legal system with its own criminal law, then intent is part of the poll.  You don't need to say "What if he is kidding?" because that's the point of making something a crime. 

So the 75% who voted for ordering a killing being legal did so knowing that intent to kill would be part of the prosecution. 

Why are you so uncomfortable accepting that people disagree with you and that they are perfectly OK with ordering killings being legal? 

Making something illegal doesn't mean that you can't do it in a play or film.  My interpretation is the only one that makes sense.  And from past experience here, a lot of libertarians are OK with ordering a killing; see here for an example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=63693.msg755056#msg755056  the guy says the answer is that everyone should be free to order killings.

Again, I'd wager that the vast majority of those voting for that statement did so without presuming it meant "intent to kill." Voting for not throwing people in jail for making a statement isn't the same as voting for allowing people to "order a killing."

Your presumption doesn't even make sense. If there's going to be a system of law at all, few people, even in libertarian circles, are going to agree with "ordering a killing" being legal. Certainly not 75%.

Perhaps you should start a new poll clarifying the issue, and see what the response is?

One bitcoin says the results will prove your presumption wrong. Do you accept?

Actually hurting people because they say others should be hurt is... ironic?

And how is this actually going to go down, will there be an intermediate step where a chief tells minions to go do the arrest/kill as needed? Maybe the minions get paid (200BTC?) too?

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

Wow, you found a topic on which I am amongst the least liberal people.

I think it crosses a line when killing is combined with a context that does not make a logical/symmetric law. E.g. killing blue-eyed but not green-eyed people under otherwise similar circumstances can probably not be justified.

I don't mind the discussion of right-wing ideas. Just when the actual path toward arbitrary killings is paved, which begins with the planning, I turn into an enemy.

maybe naive question, but still.. would people really kill each other more often if it becomes legal?

Of course.  Remove the threat of punishment and riots follow immediately.

Everybody can kill or be killed, so there would always be a threat of punishment. The question is if it should be monopolized by state. Why would the riots happen in a stable wealthy country?

Probably at least the last two statements are immoral, but I'm not sure that it would be more moral to react to them with violence. In my ideal anarcho-capitalist system, you'd pay protection agencies to protect you from violence and enforce other "laws". I would not spend extra money to punish people for making threats like this against groups, even groups that I am a part of. I only consider more specific threats to be dangerous enough to react to. I would use a protection agency that prohibited the last statement (and maybe a few other statements in the poll), since I won't ever make threats like that.

I voted "All should be legal".

Um no.  You don't need to theorise about this.  Look what happened in London last year when the police lost control, or Baghdad in 2003.  The state monopoly on violence means that its use is generally predictable and controlled.  Once its a free for all, the strong band together and prey on the weak.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102149/London-riots-Ashraf-Rossli-mugged-Malaysian-students-attacker-identified.html

Just doing simple statistics you can easily proove: The more laws ban killing, the more killing takes place.
Take this assumption and without any logical foundation invert it, you easily find ... anything stupid or so.  ;D
The primary assumption is wrong!

In a society people need each other. So they should not kill each other.
Get it more precisely from Hans Jonas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Jonas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Jonas)

As we moved from hunter gatherer to farms to cities to modern states, violence fell.  Right now, humanity is in a golden age in terms of people being able to live their lives free from violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

I have no idea what statistics you looked at but its a matter of fact that the more criminal law developed, the safer things got. 

Is a 50-year correlation really enough to prove a statement as general and profound as "the more laws ban killing, the more killing takes place"? Let's look at a different graph:

http://madeinamericathebook.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/violence-stylized2.png?w=430&h=295

And:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/111.1/images/monkkonen_fig02b.gif

from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/111.1/monkkonen.html (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/111.1/monkkonen.html)

There are plenty of ways to explain that blip in the 1960-1990s - the war on drugs was a very large factor, some blame elements of the civil rights movement for the increase and some praise legalization of abortion for the decrease.

I would personally argue that the long-term decrease in violence in general is largely attributable to the increase in societal complexity and the reduction of importance of material goods - there's really not much valuable that you can actually steal these days. 2000 years ago, if you conquered a country or attacked a ship as a pirate you could take all the wealth and even capture much of the value of the people through slavery. Nowadays, all the wealth is more and more in personalized (ie. non-commodity) goods, human capital and social relationships, which can't be easily stolen. There's just no point to violence any more.

Are you serious?
Any sane person would prefer to take the life of an unknown over his own or that of a loved one. Just change the situation to something more inevitable, like your car lost breaks, and either you run over an unknown person or you run over your son/daughter, no other option. Any normal person would run over the unknown person.

Saying "You should kill a blue-eyed person right now or I will kill (you|your daughter)" is a clear threat, and as such, unethical. The victim of such threat has all the right to respond with violence, but if he really can't (picture a situation where the one doing the threat is much stronger than the victim, or even a "Saw movie scenario" thing), I don't think it's him that should be liable for the killing of the blue-eyed, but the one who was threatening him to do it.

I agree with you, in the sense that I don't think I would voluntary finance police to go after the guy making the last statement (the actual threat), if it targeted me in a generic manner like the color or my eyes. But if the threat target me directly, or someone close to me, I probably would, as you say.

But even for the generic threat, maybe some blue-eyed person would go as far as paying police to go after the guy proposing the criminal contract.

I guess the poll is more about ethics (what justifies the use of force? In other words, which statement is a violation of the non aggression principle?) than to practicability (is the use of force the best approach to deal with this?)
That's why I voted for the last statement to be "banned".

If everyone felt like this, then what makes you think "The Police" wouldn't take up the bounty? After all, they already have guns and know how to use them.

If it is a matter of self-defense, then it is. Of course you must have no other alternative. But provided that you're being threatened and that you really don't have alternatives, then it is legitimate self-defense.

A classical example is that of a madman who attaches a baby to his chest and start shooting towards you. You cannot cover, your only option is to shoot back before he hits you. In this case, if the baby gets killed, the responsible for his death is not you, but the madman.
Another example is that of an elite shooter who, to stop a madman shooting innocents, ends up also hitting a person behind him (those long range bullets can easily pass through a human body).


Of course I'm not saying it is OK to kill innocent people. What I'm saying is that the responsibility for the murder should be attributed to the correct person, and in some cases, the person criminally responsible is the one who initiates the threat, not the one that actually does the killing.

Why are they different? If that's the only way to save your life from the aggression, isn't it pretty much the same thing?

No, what I am saying is that ordering a killing does not justify actual killing in response. The topic of "forbidding" never came up.

That depends on the form of the retaliation. If the intended victim orders a reciprocal killing, this would be a proportional, defensive response. As such, they would be in a superior moral position, assuming one considers mere organization of a killing to be aggression in the first place. If they retaliate by personally killing whoever ordered their death, however, that would be a disproportionate response, and thus an inferior moral position.

Those who chose to accept either order would be morally equivalent; neither could claim to be acting defensively.

I'm not saying that you can't respond preemptively to an intended action. In this situation the speech can be taken as a declaration of imminent intent to shoot you; however, you're responding to the shooting, not the speech. It would be a different matter if he said "give me $200 or I'll hire someone to shoot you".

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what it means: that speech, per se, has no legal consequences. (There may be other, extra-legal, non-violent consequences, but they are not relevant here.) Intent can have legal consequences, and certain speech can be taken as evidence of intent, but that's not the same as being punished purely for the content of the speech.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think it means that you are absolved of the consequences of your speech.  Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not exercising the right to free speech and is justifiably penalised.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think that you can retain it while simultaneously being under threat of punishment simply for speaking.

There is no sense in which it is meaningful to say that you are free to do something while also arguing that the action justifies a violent response. Under that interpretation, you have unlimited "freedom" even if you're living under the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable--you can do whatever you want, you just have to accept the consequences. That would make "freedom" a null concept. No, freedom of speech means that you are free to speak; i.e., speech alone is never a justification for punishment.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" ruling is a particularly bad example. The responsible parties in that case are the ones who trampled others in their haste to escape, not whoever yelled "Fire!", whether or not there really was one. Ruling that the (presumed) prankster is responsible for others' actions is pure laziness on the part of the court, allowing them to punish the one person they could identify rather than actually hunt down those directly responsible for the harm.

Semantics aside, the real question remains: how can you justify violence as a proportional response to speech?

I think we are done here.  You can fantasise about your little utopia where the victims of crime are are "the responsible parties" but since there is no way it will ever be adopted I can't be bothered with you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps someone else will respond more constructively.


I think we can at least agree that the real victims are those who were injured in the rush to escape the "fire". I never said that they were responsible; I said that those who injured them were responsible. Even if they were acting on accurate information--if there really was a fire--they would still be responsible for causing those injuries. Panic is not an excuse.

The worst offense the one who shouted "Fire!" is guilty of is deliberately providing false information. Everything which comes after that point is due to the choices of others, and thus their responsibility. They could have chosen to ignore the warning, or check for an actual fire, or at least exit the theatre in an orderly manner. Instead, some of them panicked and trampled others in their rush to escape.

nybble41 - I misread you about the "responsible" vs victim thing.  My mistake - thanks for pointing it out in a civil manner.

My problem with your position is that I don't see how it improves on what we have now.  Right now, a prankster yelling fire in a crowded theatre resulting in deaths gets punished.  If you stop that, more people do it and lots more people die.  I'm sure you could think of some kind of contract arrangement that says "by entering this cinema I agree not to yell fire unless there is indeed a fire" but what the benefit?

You're right in that I do favor the contract approach. The main difference is that breach of contract is a civil matter, between the owner of the theatre and the patron/prankster. As such, the prankster voluntarily agreed to pay the compensation beforehand; the question of justification does not arise. There is no violence involved, only the voluntary exchange of alienable property. It seems to me that an arbitrarily high contractual penalty, plus non-violent responses such as social ostracism, should prove a sufficient deterrent against these sorts of pranks.


I would argue against the idea that "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" can result in deaths. Even assuming that people have the right to assume the trust of such a statement, and hold the speaker accountable for the cost should it prove false, responsibility for the harm lies with those who caused the injuries. Fire or no fire, if people are injured during the rush to exit the building, they have the right to seek compensation, but only from those who injured them. The people who caused the injuries can't really transfer the blame onto the one who shouted "Fire!", as the injuries would be their fault even if the fire had been real. The fact that it was a prank changes nothing.

If you yell fire in a room full of cats and the cats panic, then you can claim innocence as its totally unexpected for the cats to understand you and respond. 

But human nature is what it is.  If you yell "Fire" as a prank knowing that it will cause panic and deaths, you have to take responsibility for those deaths.  Saying that its the fault of the people you scared is technically true but pointless.  People do get scared and if you know that and cause a panic, then you are responsible.

Perhaps you will never agree with me on this.  But I don't see how you offer anything better than our present system.  Even if your contract idea worked perfectly, it can only be as good as what we have now and it involves a lot of unnecessary faffing about with lawyers and contracts.

It strikes me as obvious that someone who intends to create a stampede, takes action to do so, and as a result of his action has a stampede occur, is at least partially responsible for the stampede.

Whether one wishes to ban the specific speech he used is one thing, but to claim the person has no moral culpability for his action seems pretty indefensible. I'm fairly certain no one actually lives their life as if they believe that (at least when such actions are directed at them.)

Before I begin, I laud you for taking the position you do. It's a hard and arduous one to convince others especially when the outcome results in harm that seemingly originated with the prankster. However, it presents a few interesting challenges, which I'll proceed to inquire with you. Mind you, these will be merely logical situations to consider, not ones in which I would ever be a party to, nor convince others to engage in.

Scenario:

Two individuals are located in close proximity to each other (Man A and Man B). They both carry loaded weapons. Both have been openly cleaning and handling their weapons within view of nearby bystanders. At this point no threats of violence are imminent or perceived by anyone. Neither man knows the intent of the other, or has any former knowledge of each other (they have had no past dealings for the sake of this argument).

     Situation 1: A completely independent and unrelated but close proximity explosion occurs of unknown origin. This startles man (A) as he believes the explosion is a result of the other man (B) discharging his gun at him. He fires (presumably in self defense) killing B. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?
   
    Situation 2: A man (C) in the vicinity personally knows B (past dealings), and believes B's life to be endangered by A. He wishes to defend B and discharges his weapon at A and misses. Man A perceives the shot came from B and thus shoots (presumably in self defense) and kills B. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?
   
    Situation 3: Man C is contracted to kill A. He was paid by man B for this purpose. C fires his weapon and misses A, A returns fire (believing the shot originated from B) killing B. C escapes undetected with his life. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

This is pointless musing anyway because it all depends on context.

~35% of people say all of the statements should be legal, ~35% just don't like the last one.

70% believe that ordering a massacre should be legal.

Hawker, you should go kill five blue-eyed people right now.

ETA: deleted post from the future, realizing it's a bad time to have data from previous ISPs perused. Give me a few more years for the old stuff to be purged. :x

OK.  Or should I hold out for the payment ?

This is interesting, although I don't quite see any appropriate choice (nor do I fully understand the poll) so I'll post my thoughts here instead.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances.

At least in the US, this kind of wording is called "bad journalism" and doesn't include any citations or evidence to show proof of the claim. If it negatively affects a group, that group could be legally obliged to file a law suit. Typically though, it's just bad journalism and people stop listening to the author. This, not the topics being discussed or conspiracies to shut them down, is often the same reason why small-time hyper-political and activist voices, programs, channels etc never make it mainstream-- because they're reckless and unprofessional with their wording.

At least in the US, this kind of wording is called "bad journalism" and doesn't include any citations or evidence to show proof of the claim. If it negatively affects a group, that group could be legally obliged to file a law suit. Typically though, it's just bad journalism and people stop listening to the author. This, not the topics being discussed or conspiracies to shut them down, is often the same reason why small-time hyper-political and activist voices, programs, channels etc never make it mainstream-- because they're reckless and unprofessional with their wording.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances. It may not win you any friends (except equally ignorant ones) but it does not elaborate on any plans to take action, just expresses a feeling.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances. It may not win you any friends (except equally ignorant ones) but it does not elaborate on any plans to take action, just expresses a feeling.

Proving approval is the first step to establishing intent and it is dangerous to speak this way regarding illegal activities. Until there actually is a crime committed however, it is considered Freedom of speech and it is allowed in the US at least. I don't think approval of things should ever cause judgments to be passed on individuals who do not take part, unless their un-action in fact aids the illegal act (e.g. not helping a person because they were black and letting them die could be  accomplice in a racial hate crime, although proving intent would be next to impossible without statements like this having been made publicly beforehand).

This is downright inciting violence and although in the US it is covered under Freedom of speech, that stops the moment a crime actually occurs as a direct result of it. I personally make jokes like this all the time with friends and society as a whole understands this. Saying "I'm gonna kill you!" should never be punishable unless you actually kill the person or incited the actions that led to their death.

If intent is not proven, this can be covered by Freedom of speech (at least in the US). If intent is found and/or the act is carried out with, it is a clean cut case of a contracted murder should be punished for the action, not the words.


Despite what I said above, I personally feel that people need to be allowed the space to make mistakes (hit someone and realize it wasn't right, steal something and realize they are hurting someone, etc) in order to grow in society. When murder is the mistake however, we have to be a bit more careful. That said, none of the above should be illegal to merely "say". They should be illegal to act upon, and even then, they are nothing more than evidence towards plausible intent.

Freedoms get trampled on when "I don't like people with blue eyes." becomes intent for murder.

Matthew - if something is illegal, there is still a requirement to prove intent.  If I sell you a bag of heroin thinking its flour, I commit no crime.  If "Go kill 5 blue people" is illegal, the prosecutor has to prove you meant for blue people to be killed before the crime is proven.

Good point. That was rather braindead of me.

In that case, anything that can be construed as intending violence against others should be illegal (as it already is in the USA) and only followed up with judgement when an actual crime occurs.

If there is a law banning the statement, "You should kill five blue-eyed people right now," then the question if intent boils down to "Did you intend to utter those words?"

That's part of what we are trying to point out.

No - that would ban their use in films which would make the entire poll pointless.

Except that such exceptions are typically either codified directly, or merely ignored in such obvious cases of legal overreach. I don't see such a concern typically slowing down people's response to such issues.

Do you think rape should be illegal?  Are you going to say "No - it might be in a film so I can't say rape should be illegal."  Of course not.

As I said, if the poll includes saying the words in a film, then it is meaningless. 

Interesting you mention this. I saw a blog of the top 10 banned movies and challenged myself to watch them all, and just got through watching "A Serbian Film" and "Human Centipede 2". I can safely say it would not bother me at all to have those movies be illegal. They don't seem to serve any purpose other than for the director to get off on acting out his fantasies. I know that's a bit off topic, and I know we get into the "drawn children pornography has no victims" arguments pretty soon too, but holy shit that crap is fucked up beyond belief.

I say let the ignorant morons let themselves be known publicly, instead of having them brood and plot in secret.

I'm saying that most people who answered the poll (especially if they aren't really partaking in the thread afterwards) likely didn't give a thought to the idea of saying such things in a film. They looked at a phrase, said "Well of course people shouldn't be saying that!" and voted.

But if someone in a bar says "You should go out and kill five blue-eyed people right now," and the statement itself is what is banned, then you don't have to prove the person truly intended for someone to die. All you have to prove is that they intended to utter the statement.

Whether written properly or not, Hollywood actors won't be prosecuted (Hollywood has money and influence, after all.) But there's no guarantee that anyone else saying the statement won't, and it's more probable that they will be prosecuted, regardless of whether they really meant for anyone to die, because the crime is no longer attempted murder, it's uttering a banned statement.

Be honest - that's a far fetched interpretation.  Most people in this forum have moral objections to the very idea of a police force and their vote is far more likely to represent that kind of thoughtless anti-establishment thinking than any careful consideration of the rights of artists.

My point remains valid.  If the poll was intended to cover the situation where people are saying things in a movie or saying things and not meaning it, the poll is meaningless.

EDIT: since we don't agree, I'll stop.  Your interpretation is valid - so is mine - no point debating it :)

This is similar to the case where someone is executed for a capital crime which they were believed to have committed, but as it later turns out did not actually commit. The death is deliberate, but not an act of aggression, because it was believed to be in self-defense at the time. "Voluntary manslaughter" would seem to be an appropriate label. Man A would be liable for "making the victim whole" (paying restitution to Man B's estate), but not subject to retribution so long as that obligation is met in good faith.
   
The last part, Man A shooting Man B in presumed self-defense, is merely situation 1, with the shot from Man C playing the part of the "explosion ... of unknown origin". That Man C was acting in defense of Man B is irrelevant unless there was an agent/principal relationship in effect between them (e.g. if Man C was Man B's bodyguard, or otherwise acting under orders). Without such a relationship, Man C was acting on his own authority, and cannot claim to be acting defensively as he was not the one threatened. Since the shot missed, there is no harm to Man A requiring restitution; however, since it was both deliberate and non-defensive, Man A would have a claim to retribution based on Man C's intent in firing the shot.

On the other hand, if Man C was acting as Man B's agent (under orders), then liability for restitution would lie with Man B should it later prove that Man A posed no danger to him. (The scenario presumes that Man C believes Man B to be in danger; if that were not the case, then acting "under orders" would not shield Man C from direct liability for his actions, which he knew to be aggressive.)
   
Man A shooting Man B in presumed self-defense is, once again, the same as situation 1. Since the first shot missed, there was no harm done to Man A for which restitution might be sought from Man C. However, Man A would have a claim to retribution against Man C based on his intent. Man C may also be in breach of his contract to Man B, depending on the specific nature of the contract.