The free speech poll

[cbeast]

I agree with you, in the sense that I don't think I would voluntary finance police to go after the guy making the last statement (the actual threat), if it targeted me in a generic manner like the color or my eyes. But if the threat target me directly, or someone close to me, I probably would, as you say.

But even for the generic threat, maybe some blue-eyed person would go as far as paying police to go after the guy proposing the criminal contract.

If everyone felt like this, then what makes you think "The Police" wouldn't take up the bounty? After all, they already have guns and know how to use them.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

But don't tell me it's moral to choose between two innocent lives because one is your flesh and blood.

If it is a matter of self-defense, then it is. Of course you must have no other alternative. But provided that you're being threatened and that you really don't have alternatives, then it is legitimate self-defense.

A classical example is that of a madman who attaches a baby to his chest and start shooting towards you. You cannot cover, your only option is to shoot back before he hits you. In this case, if the baby gets killed, the responsible for his death is not you, but the madman.
Another example is that of an elite shooter who, to stop a madman shooting innocents, ends up also hitting a person behind him (those long range bullets can easily pass through a human body).

And if you think it's OK to kill an innocent person because your life has been threatened by a madman... well nice opinion you have there. Good luck convincing the family of the victim that you simply "had" to do it.

Of course I'm not saying it is OK to kill innocent people. What I'm saying is that the responsibility for the murder should be attributed to the correct person, and in some cases, the person criminally responsible is the one who initiates the threat, not the one that actually does the killing.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Why are they different? If that's the only way to save your life from the aggression, isn't it pretty much the same thing?

[nybble41]

If they "organized" it, but didn't actually commit the murder, then any violent response is proportional only to an action (actual murder, not just offering money to someone else to commit murder) which the target of the response never took. Naturally, if you chose to "organize" a murder of your own in response it would be governed by the same rules, so you are free to respond in kind. However, anyone who chooses to accept your hit job would be acting just as aggressively as whoever chose to accept theirs; they could not claim self-defense, even as your agent, any more than the first party's hit man could shift the blame onto his employer.

What you are saying is that its wrong to forbid someone ordering a killing but perfectly ok to organise a killing yourself.

No, what I am saying is that ordering a killing does not justify actual killing in response. The topic of "forbidding" never came up.

So if the intended victim tries to retaliate, they are morally equal to the person who organised the killing.

That depends on the form of the retaliation. If the intended victim orders a reciprocal killing, this would be a proportional, defensive response. As such, they would be in a superior moral position, assuming one considers mere organization of a killing to be aggression in the first place. If they retaliate by personally killing whoever ordered their death, however, that would be a disproportionate response, and thus an inferior moral position.

Those who chose to accept either order would be morally equivalent; neither could claim to be acting defensively.

Even if you consider this "conspiracy" or "incitement" and/or a form of aggression, there is still the principle of proportional response to consider. How would one defend the claim that violence, of any sort, is a proportional response to a spoken statement, however threatening?

So even if someone walks up to you with a gun clearly in his pocket (assume that such gun carrying is normal and acceptable where you live) and says "give me $200 or I'll shoot you" it's not OK to attack him first? I'm all for free speech, but once you start taking things this far and outlawing preemptive strikes I really think we're entering into "evil will always defeat good because good is dumb" territory.

I'm not saying that you can't respond preemptively to an intended action. In this situation the speech can be taken as a declaration of imminent intent to shoot you; however, you're responding to the shooting, not the speech. It would be a different matter if he said "give me $200 or I'll hire someone to shoot you".

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what it means: that speech, per se, has no legal consequences. (There may be other, extra-legal, non-violent consequences, but they are not relevant here.) Intent can have legal consequences, and certain speech can be taken as evidence of intent, but that's not the same as being punished purely for the content of the speech.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what it means: that speech, per se, has no legal consequences. (There may be other, extra-legal, non-violent consequences, but they are not relevant here.) Intent can have legal consequences, and certain speech can be taken as evidence of intent, but that's not the same as being punished purely for the content of the speech.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think it means that you are absolved of the consequences of your speech.  Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not exercising the right to free speech and is justifiably penalised.

[nybble41]

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what it means: that speech, per se, has no legal consequences. (There may be other, extra-legal, non-violent consequences, but they are not relevant here.) Intent can have legal consequences, and certain speech can be taken as evidence of intent, but that's not the same as being punished purely for the content of the speech.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think it means that you are absolved of the consequences of your speech.  Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not exercising the right to free speech and is justifiably penalised.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think that you can retain it while simultaneously being under threat of punishment simply for speaking.

There is no sense in which it is meaningful to say that you are free to do something while also arguing that the action justifies a violent response. Under that interpretation, you have unlimited "freedom" even if you're living under the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable--you can do whatever you want, you just have to accept the consequences. That would make "freedom" a null concept. No, freedom of speech means that you are free to speak; i.e., speech alone is never a justification for punishment.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" ruling is a particularly bad example. The responsible parties in that case are the ones who trampled others in their haste to escape, not whoever yelled "Fire!", whether or not there really was one. Ruling that the (presumed) prankster is responsible for others' actions is pure laziness on the part of the court, allowing them to punish the one person they could identify rather than actually hunt down those directly responsible for the harm.

Semantics aside, the real question remains: how can you justify violence as a proportional response to speech?

[Hawker]

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free from the consequences of your speech.

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what it means: that speech, per se, has no legal consequences. (There may be other, extra-legal, non-violent consequences, but they are not relevant here.) Intent can have legal consequences, and certain speech can be taken as evidence of intent, but that's not the same as being punished purely for the content of the speech.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think it means that you are absolved of the consequences of your speech.  Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not exercising the right to free speech and is justifiably penalised.

Sorry - you have no idea what "freedom of speech" means if you think that you can retain it while simultaneously being under threat of punishment simply for speaking.

There is no sense in which it is meaningful to say that you are free to do something while also arguing that the action justifies a violent response. Under that interpretation, you have unlimited "freedom" even if you're living under the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable--you can do whatever you want, you just have to accept the consequences. That would make "freedom" a null concept. No, freedom of speech means that you are free to speak; i.e., speech alone is never a justification for punishment.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" ruling is a particularly bad example. The responsible parties in that case are the ones who trampled others in their haste to escape, not whoever yelled "Fire!", whether or not there really was one. Ruling that the (presumed) prankster is responsible for others' actions is pure laziness on the part of the court, allowing them to punish the one person they could identify rather than actually hunt down those directly responsible for the harm.

Semantics aside, the real question remains: how can you justify violence as a proportional response to speech?

I think we are done here.  You can fantasise about your little utopia where the victims of crime are are "the responsible parties" but since there is no way it will ever be adopted I can't be bothered with you.

[nybble41]

There is no sense in which it is meaningful to say that you are free to do something while also arguing that the action justifies a violent response. Under that interpretation, you have unlimited "freedom" even if you're living under the most oppressive totalitarian regime imaginable--you can do whatever you want, you just have to accept the consequences. That would make "freedom" a null concept. No, freedom of speech means that you are free to speak; i.e., speech alone is never a justification for punishment.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" ruling is a particularly bad example. The responsible parties in that case are the ones who trampled others in their haste to escape, not whoever yelled "Fire!", whether or not there really was one. Ruling that the (presumed) prankster is responsible for others' actions is pure laziness on the part of the court, allowing them to punish the one person they could identify rather than actually hunt down those directly responsible for the harm.

I think we are done here.  You can fantasise about your little utopia ... but since there is no way it will ever be adopted I can't be bothered with you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps someone else will respond more constructively.

... where the victims of crime are are "the responsible parties" ...

I think we can at least agree that the real victims are those who were injured in the rush to escape the "fire". I never said that they were responsible; I said that those who injured them were responsible. Even if they were acting on accurate information--if there really was a fire--they would still be responsible for causing those injuries. Panic is not an excuse.

The worst offense the one who shouted "Fire!" is guilty of is deliberately providing false information. Everything which comes after that point is due to the choices of others, and thus their responsibility. They could have chosen to ignore the warning, or check for an actual fire, or at least exit the theatre in an orderly manner. Instead, some of them panicked and trampled others in their rush to escape.

Semantics aside, the real question remains: how can you justify violence as a proportional response to speech?

[Hawker]

nybble41 - I misread you about the "responsible" vs victim thing.  My mistake - thanks for pointing it out in a civil manner.

My problem with your position is that I don't see how it improves on what we have now.  Right now, a prankster yelling fire in a crowded theatre resulting in deaths gets punished.  If you stop that, more people do it and lots more people die.  I'm sure you could think of some kind of contract arrangement that says "by entering this cinema I agree not to yell fire unless there is indeed a fire" but what the benefit?

[nybble41]

nybble41 - I misread you about the "responsible" vs victim thing.  My mistake - thanks for pointing it out in a civil manner.

My problem with your position is that I don't see how it improves on what we have now.  Right now, a prankster yelling fire in a crowded theatre resulting in deaths gets punished.  If you stop that, more people do it and lots more people die.  I'm sure you could think of some kind of contract arrangement that says "by entering this cinema I agree not to yell fire unless there is indeed a fire" but what the benefit?

You're right in that I do favor the contract approach. The main difference is that breach of contract is a civil matter, between the owner of the theatre and the patron/prankster. As such, the prankster voluntarily agreed to pay the compensation beforehand; the question of justification does not arise. There is no violence involved, only the voluntary exchange of alienable property. It seems to me that an arbitrarily high contractual penalty, plus non-violent responses such as social ostracism, should prove a sufficient deterrent against these sorts of pranks.

Right now, a prankster yelling fire in a crowded theatre resulting in deaths gets punished.

I would argue against the idea that "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" can result in deaths. Even assuming that people have the right to assume the trust of such a statement, and hold the speaker accountable for the cost should it prove false, responsibility for the harm lies with those who caused the injuries. Fire or no fire, if people are injured during the rush to exit the building, they have the right to seek compensation, but only from those who injured them. The people who caused the injuries can't really transfer the blame onto the one who shouted "Fire!", as the injuries would be their fault even if the fire had been real. The fact that it was a prank changes nothing.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I would argue against the idea that "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" can result in deaths. Even assuming that people have the right to assume the trust of such a statement, and hold the speaker accountable for the cost should it prove false, responsibility for the harm lies with those who caused the injuries. Fire or no fire, if people are injured during the rush to exit the building, they have the right to seek compensation, but only from those who injured them. The people who caused the injuries can't really transfer the blame onto the one who shouted "Fire!", as the injuries would be their fault even if the fire had been real. The fact that it was a prank changes nothing.

If you yell fire in a room full of cats and the cats panic, then you can claim innocence as its totally unexpected for the cats to understand you and respond. 

But human nature is what it is.  If you yell "Fire" as a prank knowing that it will cause panic and deaths, you have to take responsibility for those deaths.  Saying that its the fault of the people you scared is technically true but pointless.  People do get scared and if you know that and cause a panic, then you are responsible.

Perhaps you will never agree with me on this.  But I don't see how you offer anything better than our present system.  Even if your contract idea worked perfectly, it can only be as good as what we have now and it involves a lot of unnecessary faffing about with lawyers and contracts.

[westkybitcoins]

It strikes me as obvious that someone who intends to create a stampede, takes action to do so, and as a result of his action has a stampede occur, is at least partially responsible for the stampede.

Whether one wishes to ban the specific speech he used is one thing, but to claim the person has no moral culpability for his action seems pretty indefensible. I'm fairly certain no one actually lives their life as if they believe that (at least when such actions are directed at them.)

[FredericBastiat]

I would argue against the idea that "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" can result in deaths. Even assuming that people have the right to assume the trust of such a statement, and hold the speaker accountable for the cost should it prove false, responsibility for the harm lies with those who caused the injuries. Fire or no fire, if people are injured during the rush to exit the building, they have the right to seek compensation, but only from those who injured them. The people who caused the injuries can't really transfer the blame onto the one who shouted "Fire!", as the injuries would be their fault even if the fire had been real. The fact that it was a prank changes nothing.

Before I begin, I laud you for taking the position you do. It's a hard and arduous one to convince others especially when the outcome results in harm that seemingly originated with the prankster. However, it presents a few interesting challenges, which I'll proceed to inquire with you. Mind you, these will be merely logical situations to consider, not ones in which I would ever be a party to, nor convince others to engage in.

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?
   
    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?
   
    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?

[goodlord666]

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.

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

This is pointless musing anyway because it all depends on context.

[Vitalik Buterin]

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

~35% of people say all of the statements should be legal, ~35% just don't like the last one.

[Hawker]

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

~35% of people say all of the statements should be legal, ~35% just don't like the last one.

Code:

You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.

70% believe that ordering a massacre should be legal.

[Kluge]

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

~35% of people say all of the statements should be legal, ~35% just don't like the last one.

Code:

You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.

70% believe that ordering a massacre should be legal.

Hawker, you should go kill five blue-eyed people right now.

ETA: deleted post from the future, realizing it's a bad time to have data from previous ISPs perused. Give me a few more years for the old stuff to be purged. :x

[Hawker]

Thats not at all what I understood. The way I read it most people think that last one is where they draw the line. Unless they all read the question wrong.

~35% of people say all of the statements should be legal, ~35% just don't like the last one.

Code:

You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.

70% believe that ordering a massacre should be legal.

Hawker, you should go kill five blue-eyed people right now.

OK.  Or should I hold out for the payment ?

[Matthew N. Wright]

This is interesting, although I don't quite see any appropriate choice (nor do I fully understand the poll) so I'll post my thoughts here instead.

I don't like people with blue eyes.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances.

People with blue eyes have a negative impact on society.

At least in the US, this kind of wording is called "bad journalism" and doesn't include any citations or evidence to show proof of the claim. If it negatively affects a group, that group could be legally obliged to file a law suit. Typically though, it's just bad journalism and people stop listening to the author. This, not the topics being discussed or conspiracies to shut them down, is often the same reason why small-time hyper-political and activist voices, programs, channels etc never make it mainstream-- because they're reckless and unprofessional with their wording.

The world would be better off without people with blue eyes.

At least in the US, this kind of wording is called "bad journalism" and doesn't include any citations or evidence to show proof of the claim. If it negatively affects a group, that group could be legally obliged to file a law suit. Typically though, it's just bad journalism and people stop listening to the author. This, not the topics being discussed or conspiracies to shut them down, is often the same reason why small-time hyper-political and activist voices, programs, channels etc never make it mainstream-- because they're reckless and unprofessional with their wording.

I think people with blue eyes should leave the country or kill themselves.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances. It may not win you any friends (except equally ignorant ones) but it does not elaborate on any plans to take action, just expresses a feeling.

I approve of people doing something (or "People should do something") to push against those blue-eyed scum.

Freedom of speech allows for this in the US at least, and I don't think this level of opinion should ever be stifled under any circumstances. It may not win you any friends (except equally ignorant ones) but it does not elaborate on any plans to take action, just expresses a feeling.

I approve of people going out and killing those blue-eyed scum.

Proving approval is the first step to establishing intent and it is dangerous to speak this way regarding illegal activities. Until there actually is a crime committed however, it is considered Freedom of speech and it is allowed in the US at least. I don't think approval of things should ever cause judgments to be passed on individuals who do not take part, unless their un-action in fact aids the illegal act (e.g. not helping a person because they were black and letting them die could be  accomplice in a racial hate crime, although proving intent would be next to impossible without statements like this having been made publicly beforehand).

You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now.

This is downright inciting violence and although in the US it is covered under Freedom of speech, that stops the moment a crime actually occurs as a direct result of it. I personally make jokes like this all the time with friends and society as a whole understands this. Saying "I'm gonna kill you!" should never be punishable unless you actually kill the person or incited the actions that led to their death.

If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins.

If intent is not proven, this can be covered by Freedom of speech (at least in the US). If intent is found and/or the act is carried out with, it is a clean cut case of a contracted murder should be punished for the action, not the words.

All of the above should be legal.

Despite what I said above, I personally feel that people need to be allowed the space to make mistakes (hit someone and realize it wasn't right, steal something and realize they are hurting someone, etc) in order to grow in society. When murder is the mistake however, we have to be a bit more careful. That said, none of the above should be illegal to merely "say". They should be illegal to act upon, and even then, they are nothing more than evidence towards plausible intent.

Freedoms get trampled on when "I don't like people with blue eyes." becomes intent for murder.

[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.