The free speech poll - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: westkybitcoins on February 16, 2012, 12:12:43 PM

You're still looking at the poll wrong.

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

The reason is because I believe THAT is the kind of speech that should be banned.

Everything above it, well, whatever. Some of those other statements are more disturbing than others, and the "you should kill..." statement would make me take some sort of non-violent action, but those statements above my choice shouldn't be crimes for speaking them.

But saying "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" SHOULD be a crime. To say that (IMO, perhaps not legally as far as the definition goes) is attempted murder.

I see. Hmmmm.

Code:

You, [specific person], should go and kill five blue eyed people right now. 	- 6 (13.3%)
If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins. 	- 18 (40%)
All of the above should be legal. 	- 15 (33.3%)

So on your reading, 33.3% of the voters are OK with offering to pay someone to kill, and 40% are OK with instructing a specific person to kill.

Thanks for clearing that up.

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

You're still looking at the poll wrong.

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

The reason is because I believe THAT is the kind of speech that should be banned.

Everything above it, well, whatever. Some of those other statements are more disturbing than others, and the "you should kill..." statement would make me take some sort of non-violent action, but those statements above my choice shouldn't be crimes for speaking them.

But saying "If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins" SHOULD be a crime. To say that (IMO, perhaps not legally as far as the definition goes) is attempted murder.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on February 16, 2012, 12:02:47 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 16, 2012, 11:31:11 AM

And the words "I will pay you to kill someone" are examples of words that have consequences. If you say them, and all goes well, you get someone you dislike killed.

And 72% of the people who voted are ok with that being legal.

You seriously have comprehension issues. Look again, only 34% of people voted for "None of the above".
All others think you cannot propose a criminal contract.

Code:

All of the above should be legal. 	- 15 (33.3%)

They voted for ALL of the above to be legal.

Code:

If you, [specific person], kill five blue-eyed people right now, I'll give you 200 bitcoins. 	- 18 (40%)

Add the 40% who think that ordering a killing is fine to the 33% who say that its fine as are all the other options. Thats 74%.

Correct me if I am wrong.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on February 16, 2012, 11:31:11 AM

And the words "I will pay you to kill someone" are examples of words that have consequences. If you say them, and all goes well, you get someone you dislike killed.

And 72% of the people who voted are ok with that being legal.

You seriously have comprehension issues. Look again, only 34% of people voted for "None of the above".
All others think you cannot propose a criminal contract.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 16, 2012, 10:27:18 AM

Words are not unconnected to the world we live in.

I never suggested they were. I simply said that the poll is about speaking words, not actions.

Edit: Except of course, the action of speaking!

And the words "I will pay you to kill someone" are examples of words that have consequences. If you say them, and all goes well, you get someone you dislike killed.

And 72% of the people who voted are ok with that being legal.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: cbeast on February 16, 2012, 10:10:32 AM

You might want to add something about making it legal to take out a fire and life insurance policy against the blue eyed person you would offer to pay to have killed.

The poll is about speaking words. Why does everyone want to make it something else.

Words are not unconnected to the world we live in. The words "I will pay you 200 Bitcoin to kill my girlfriend" are not the same as "Wow I love ponies."

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

You might want to add something about making it legal to take out a fire and life insurance policy against the blue eyed person you would offer to pay to have killed.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: interlagos on February 16, 2012, 07:36:56 AM

This topic is interesting, what if we consider freedom of speech as the method to spread the information about the intent of an individual.
So basically by allowing a person to communicate freely about offering a payment for killing blue-eyed people we let the society know about his intention and allow it (society) to handle the situation in a non-violent way (I support ribuck here).

So would it be better if that person would secretly made an offer and no one would ever know why blue-eyed people are getting killed?

Please, keep in mind this whole topic is pure intellectual masturbation. No sane person would ever publicly propose an assassination contract. It would either be anonymous or entirely done in secret.

That said, I believe the reasoning you're making applies against "disgusting" speeches in a sense. Like, let racists express their racism, so we can identify and avoid them, for example. In this case I believe many would do it publicly.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on February 16, 2012, 06:04:43 AM

So do you the take side effects of this type of law into account at all? Or is it just you don't like that someone threatens someone else so there should be a law against it?

To threaten an innocent is a violation of the non aggression principle. It is unethical, and the use of force to repeal the threat is ethically justified (whether it is the best approach is another question).

A criminal contract proposition is pretty much a threat against the victims of the contract.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: notme on February 15, 2012, 11:47:21 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 11:29:16 AM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on February 15, 2012, 10:05:34 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 06:40:20 AM

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.

I think you messed up with the numbers here a bit.
Only 36% of people suggest that everything of the above should be legal, not 75%.
The rest 64% suggest that certain statements and all below (except the last one) should be banned/punished.
So the second to last statement which offers the payment is OPPOSED by 64% of voters here.

This topic is interesting, what if we consider freedom of speech as the method to spread the information about the intent of an individual.
So basically by allowing a person to communicate freely about offering a payment for killing blue-eyed people we let the society know about his intention and allow it (society) to handle the situation in a non-violent way (I support ribuck here).

So would it be better if that person would secretly made an offer and no one would ever know why blue-eyed people are getting killed?
Also is there difference here between public speech and free speech? If I make an offer to somebody by sending coded messages is it still a free speech?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on February 16, 2012, 05:31:46 AM

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.

So do you the take side effects of this type of law into account at all? Or is it just you don't like that someone threatens someone else so there should be a law against it?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Snapman on February 15, 2012, 08:58:26 PM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 05:39:33 PM

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.

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 05:39:33 PM

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?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

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.

Snapman

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

BTCRadio Owner

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 05:39:33 PM

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.

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 05:39:33 PM

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.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Snapman on February 15, 2012, 05:08:58 PM

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

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

BTCRadio Owner

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.

Joshwaa

hero member

Activity: 497

Merit: 500

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.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: notme on February 15, 2012, 11:47:21 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 11:29:16 AM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on February 15, 2012, 10:05:34 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 06:40:20 AM

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.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 11:29:16 AM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on February 15, 2012, 10:05:34 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 06:40:20 AM

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.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ribuck on February 15, 2012, 10:36:33 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

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

Topic: The free speech poll - page 5. (Read 8568 times)