The free speech poll - page 6. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on February 15, 2012, 11:05:34 AM

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 07:40:20 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.

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1039

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.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on February 15, 2012, 07:40:20 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.

Joshwaa

hero member

Activity: 497

Merit: 500

+1 Holliday

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Joshwaa on February 14, 2012, 11:24:51 AM

Quote from: cbeast on February 14, 2012, 09:01:12 AM

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.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: Joshwaa on February 14, 2012, 11:24:51 AM

Quote from: cbeast on February 14, 2012, 09:01:12 AM

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.

Joshwaa

hero member

Activity: 497

Merit: 500

Quote from: cbeast on February 14, 2012, 09:01:12 AM

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

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1006

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

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.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 13, 2012, 06:05:36 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 13, 2012, 09:55:20 AM

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.

Kluge

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1015

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

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: cbeast on February 13, 2012, 01:55:49 PM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

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.

Vitalik Buterin

sr. member

Activity: 330

Merit: 397

Quote from: BadBear on February 13, 2012, 10:05:38 AM

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.

Vitalik Buterin

sr. member

Activity: 330

Merit: 397

Quote from: Joshwaa on February 13, 2012, 01:48:58 PM

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

sr. member

Activity: 330

Merit: 397

Quote from: bb113 on February 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM

Quote from: ribuck on February 13, 2012, 09:27:34 AM

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).

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hawker on February 13, 2012, 09:55:20 AM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: ribuck on February 13, 2012, 09:27:34 AM

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.

Joshwaa

hero member

Activity: 497

Merit: 500

Quote from: foggyb on February 13, 2012, 04:28:20 PM

"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!

foggyb

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1006

"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.

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1039

Quote from: Savior on February 13, 2012, 01:36:41 PM

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.

Topic: The free speech poll - page 6. (Read 8494 times)