The free speech poll

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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.

[1713565432]

1713565432

[Kluge]

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

[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. 

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]

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.

[Joshwaa]

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.

[cbeast]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

+1 Holliday

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

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]

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]

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]

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

[notme]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Snapman]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[bb113]

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]

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?