The free speech poll

[Vitalik Buterin]

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.

[1715012705]

1715012705

[1715012705]

1715012705

[1715012705]

1715012705

[1715012705]

1715012705

[1715012705]

1715012705

[1715012705]

1715012705

[ribuck]

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]

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.

[BadBear]

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.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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]

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

[cbeast]

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.

[Savior]

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

[cbeast]

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.

[Joshwaa]

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.

[cbeast]

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?

[ribuck]

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]

"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]

"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!

[bb113]

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]

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. 

[Vitalik Buterin]

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).

[Vitalik Buterin]

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?

[Vitalik Buterin]

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.

[bb113]

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.