The free speech poll

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

[westkybitcoins]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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.

[westkybitcoins]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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. 

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

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.

[Rassah]

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

[westkybitcoins]

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.

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. 

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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.  

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.

[Hawker]

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.

Why don't you be honest? I don't know how you get "most people in this forum" when the majority avoid this particular sub-forum altogether, for good reason. While there might be a few vocal individuals on the forum who object to any police force at all, most would be fine with the police from the 1950s. Local sheriffs that had one full time deputy and would deputize normal people if there was a need.

In the U.S. our police force today is a militarized group of professionals that require extensive funding (including federal) and are fighting a war on drugs that is a constant assault on our freedoms. I've rarely been pulled over in my life, I can count the times on one hand, but 80% of the time the cops were fishing for a reason to search my car (for a faulty taillight bulb? I have no priors, give me a break). Unlike most, I assert my rights, even though I have nothing to hide. Not to mention while people are cutting corners to make ends meet, these guys are driving around in brand new cars (outfitted with expensive technology and the latest weapon systems) every couple of years! They throw as many citations as they can hoping one of them sticks in court. It's about making money, it's not about protection, and that needs to change.

My anti-establishment is far from thoughtless, I can promise you that. My careful consideration in this thread was, "Is it possible to utter those statements without intending to carry them out." My answer was, "Yes", and furthermore, unlike you, I don't believe that intent was included in the poll just because the question says "should be punished by the state". Why would I assume such a thing?

Why don't you make a poll that clarifies all of this and see if the results are different than what you've been suggesting? I would bet they are.

If you think there are extreme views on the forum, let me inform you, you are one of the most extreme I've seen, in the opposite direction. There's probably a reason you feel most people have a different opinion than you. Besides, what were you expecting on a forum about a new decentralized, pseudonymous, voluntary, crypto-currency?

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

[nybble41]

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?

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.
   

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?

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.)
   

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?

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.