Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:40:00 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 7381 times)
EhVedadoOAnonimato
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
February 14, 2012, 08:25:59 AM
 #21

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?

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.
1481100000
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100000

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100000
Reply with quote  #2

1481100000
Report to moderator
1481100000
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481100000

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481100000
Reply with quote  #2

1481100000
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
February 14, 2012, 08:33:02 AM
 #22

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

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 14, 2012, 10:01:52 AM
 #23

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. 

They are listed in increasing order of magnitude. If you pick one, those below it will obviously be included (except the last, which would make more sense at the top). Besides, the idea isn't to pick what the law currently states, it's to pick what you feel is justified to punish by law. 

Is your moral compass based solely on the current law of the land, because it appears that way quite often. Frankly it's frightening.

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.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 14, 2012, 01:01:12 PM
 #24

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.

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

Activity: 489



View Profile
February 14, 2012, 03:24:51 PM
 #25

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.

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 14, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
 #26

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.

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

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
 #27

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.

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

Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 489



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 02:14:08 PM
 #28

+1 Holliday

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

Activity: 616



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 03:05:34 PM
 #29

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

What it seems is that you have some serious comprehension limitations - and they are not language related.
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
February 15, 2012, 03:36:33 PM
 #30

The poll doesn't say anything about paying anyone for doing anything. The poll is about speaking the words in the statements.
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.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
 #31

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

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

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. 

notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
February 15, 2012, 04:45:52 PM
 #32

The poll doesn't say anything about paying anyone for doing anything. The poll is about speaking the words in the statements.
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.



+100

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
February 15, 2012, 04:47:21 PM
 #33

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

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

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. 

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.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 05:02:18 PM
 #34

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

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

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. 

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.


Joshwaa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 489



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 09:59:50 PM
 #35

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.

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

Activity: 291


BTCRadio Owner


View Profile WWW
February 15, 2012, 10:08:58 PM
 #36

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.

BTCRadio: 17cafKShokyQCbaNuzaDo5HLoSnffMNPAs
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 15, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
 #37

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.


Snapman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 291


BTCRadio Owner


View Profile WWW
February 16, 2012, 01:58:26 AM
 #38

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

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


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.

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.

BTCRadio: 17cafKShokyQCbaNuzaDo5HLoSnffMNPAs
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 16, 2012, 07:21:18 AM
 #39

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 16, 2012, 10:31:46 AM
 #40

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

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


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.

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.

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?

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!