Topic: The free speech poll (Read 8568 times)

This is similar to the case where someone is executed for a capital crime which they were believed to have committed, but as it later turns out did not actually commit. The death is deliberate, but not an act of aggression, because it was believed to be in self-defense at the time. "Voluntary manslaughter" would seem to be an appropriate label. Man A would be liable for "making the victim whole" (paying restitution to Man B's estate), but not subject to retribution so long as that obligation is met in good faith.
   
The last part, Man A shooting Man B in presumed self-defense, is merely situation 1, with the shot from Man C playing the part of the "explosion ... of unknown origin". That Man C was acting in defense of Man B is irrelevant unless there was an agent/principal relationship in effect between them (e.g. if Man C was Man B's bodyguard, or otherwise acting under orders). Without such a relationship, Man C was acting on his own authority, and cannot claim to be acting defensively as he was not the one threatened. Since the shot missed, there is no harm to Man A requiring restitution; however, since it was both deliberate and non-defensive, Man A would have a claim to retribution based on Man C's intent in firing the shot.

On the other hand, if Man C was acting as Man B's agent (under orders), then liability for restitution would lie with Man B should it later prove that Man A posed no danger to him. (The scenario presumes that Man C believes Man B to be in danger; if that were not the case, then acting "under orders" would not shield Man C from direct liability for his actions, which he knew to be aggressive.)
   
Man A shooting Man B in presumed self-defense is, once again, the same as situation 1. Since the first shot missed, there was no harm done to Man A for which restitution might be sought from Man C. However, Man A would have a claim to retribution against Man C based on his intent. Man C may also be in breach of his contract to Man B, depending on the specific nature of the contract.

My point remains valid.  If the poll was intended to cover the situation where people are saying things in a movie or saying things and not meaning it, the poll is meaningless.

EDIT: since we don't agree, I'll stop.  Your interpretation is valid - so is mine - no point debating it

Be honest - that's a far fetched interpretation.  Most people in this forum have moral objections to the very idea of a police force and their vote is far more likely to represent that kind of thoughtless anti-establishment thinking than any careful consideration of the rights of artists.

I'm saying that most people who answered the poll (especially if they aren't really partaking in the thread afterwards) likely didn't give a thought to the idea of saying such things in a film. They looked at a phrase, said "Well of course people shouldn't be saying that!" and voted.

But if someone in a bar says "You should go out and kill five blue-eyed people right now," and the statement itself is what is banned, then you don't have to prove the person truly intended for someone to die. All you have to prove is that they intended to utter the statement.

Whether written properly or not, Hollywood actors won't be prosecuted (Hollywood has money and influence, after all.) But there's no guarantee that anyone else saying the statement won't, and it's more probable that they will be prosecuted, regardless of whether they really meant for anyone to die, because the crime is no longer attempted murder, it's uttering a banned statement.

I say let the ignorant morons let themselves be known publicly, instead of having them brood and plot in secret.

Interesting you mention this. I saw a blog of the top 10 banned movies and challenged myself to watch them all, and just got through watching "A Serbian Film" and "Human Centipede 2". I can safely say it would not bother me at all to have those movies be illegal. They don't seem to serve any purpose other than for the director to get off on acting out his fantasies. I know that's a bit off topic, and I know we get into the "drawn children pornography has no victims" arguments pretty soon too, but holy shit that crap is fucked up beyond belief.

Do you think rape should be illegal?  Are you going to say "No - it might be in a film so I can't say rape should be illegal."  Of course not.

As I said, if the poll includes saying the words in a film, then it is meaningless. 

Except that such exceptions are typically either codified directly, or merely ignored in such obvious cases of legal overreach. I don't see such a concern typically slowing down people's response to such issues.

No - that would ban their use in films which would make the entire poll pointless.

If there is a law banning the statement, "You should kill five blue-eyed people right now," then the question if intent boils down to "Did you intend to utter those words?"

That's part of what we are trying to point out.

Good point. That was rather braindead of me.

In that case, anything that can be construed as intending violence against others should be illegal (as it already is in the USA) and only followed up with judgement when an actual crime occurs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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.


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.

OK.  Or should I hold out for the payment ?

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

70% believe that ordering a massacre should be legal.

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

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.

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?

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.)