Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2017, 06:48:55 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: 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?
I don't like people with blue eyes. - 3 (3.9%)
People with blue eyes have a negative impact on society. - 0 (0%)
The world would be better off without people with blue eyes. - 1 (1.3%)
I think people with blue eyes should leave the country or kill themselves. - 1 (1.3%)
I approve of people doing something (or "People should do something") to push against those blue-eyed scum. - 3 (3.9%)
I approve of people going out and killing those blue-eyed scum. - 5 (6.6%)
You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now. - 9 (11.8%)
If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins. - 24 (31.6%)
All of the above should be legal. - 30 (39.5%)
Total Voters: 75

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The free speech poll  (Read 8015 times)
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 11:32:03 AM
 #1

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.

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
1503038935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503038935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503038935
Reply with quote  #2

1503038935
Report to moderator
1503038935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503038935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503038935
Reply with quote  #2

1503038935
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503038935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503038935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503038935
Reply with quote  #2

1503038935
Report to moderator
1503038935
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503038935

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503038935
Reply with quote  #2

1503038935
Report to moderator
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
 #2

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
 #3

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.

.ZenCash. █████
█████ ██
▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀
▄▄▄ ███
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀
   ████
   ▀▀▀▀
███   ▄
███  ▄▄▄
   ▄▄ ███
  ▄
▄▄▄▄▄
    █████
██ █████
█████
█████ ██
▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀
▄▄▄ ███
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀
   ████
   ▀▀▀▀
███   ▄
███  ▄▄▄
   ▄▄ ███
  ▄
▄▄▄▄▄
    █████
██ █████
slack   III   ANN Thread   III   Blog
Telegram   III   forum   III   twitter

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ZEN
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
February 13, 2012, 02:05:38 PM
 #4

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.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 02:33:18 PM
 #5

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.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 02:35:26 PM
 #6

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

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 02:39:23 PM
 #7

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.
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.

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

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

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Savior
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 173


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 05:36:41 PM
 #8

Really? Over 50% think it would be ok to pay someone to kill blue eyed people?
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 05:42:29 PM
 #9

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.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 491



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 05:48:58 PM
 #10

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.

Like what I said : 1JosHWaA2GywdZo9pmGLNJ5XSt8j7nzNiF
Don't like what I said : 1FuckU1u89U9nBKQu4rCHz16uF4RhpSTV
Don't Like BFL's Project Management : 1FuckbFLZpmWLuyHyFJw1RGkWm3yRM1L5D
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 05:55:49 PM
 #11

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?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 06:01:59 PM
 #12

Really? Over 50% think it would be ok to pay someone to kill blue eyed people?
That option was not in the poll. The poll option was for uttering the statement, not for paying someone to kill blue-eyed people.
foggyb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 08:28:20 PM
 #13

"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.
Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 491



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 08:49:38 PM
 #14

"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!

Like what I said : 1JosHWaA2GywdZo9pmGLNJ5XSt8j7nzNiF
Don't like what I said : 1FuckU1u89U9nBKQu4rCHz16uF4RhpSTV
Don't Like BFL's Project Management : 1FuckbFLZpmWLuyHyFJw1RGkWm3yRM1L5D
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:00:34 PM
 #15

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.

Yes this is an important distinction. I refuse to answer until this is clarified.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:05:36 PM
 #16

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.

Your option doesn't fit the question. He's asking which statements you think should be banned, not your opinion on people with blue eyes.

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. 

.ZenCash. █████
█████ ██
▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀
▄▄▄ ███
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀
   ████
   ▀▀▀▀
███   ▄
███  ▄▄▄
   ▄▄ ███
  ▄
▄▄▄▄▄
    █████
██ █████
█████
█████ ██
▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀
▄▄▄ ███
▀▀▀ ▀▀▀
   ████
   ▀▀▀▀
███   ▄
███  ▄▄▄
   ▄▄ ███
  ▄
▄▄▄▄▄
    █████
██ █████
slack   III   ANN Thread   III   Blog
Telegram   III   forum   III   twitter

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ZEN
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:38:38 PM
 #17

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.

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

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

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:41:42 PM
 #18

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.

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?

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:44:42 PM
 #19

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

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

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 13, 2012, 10:48:04 PM
 #20

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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!