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.
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? 
Topic: The free speech poll - page 7. (Read 8568 times)
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.
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.
Really? Over 50% think it would be ok to pay someone to kill blue eyed people?
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.
The color of the eyes isn't the point, it's the scenario. Replace it with creed, color, religion, whatever you like.
Calling to action or suggesting to cause harm OTOH is often considered a criminal act. This goes beyond expressing opinion.
No rules, just guns. Legalize it all and let the chips fall where they may.
I'd like to see historical evidence of anarchists try to organize an army to avoid getting wiped out.
No rules, just guns. Legalize it all and let the chips fall where they may.
This is an interesting thought exercise.
Making a criminal contract is criminal by itself. You can't obviously make a contract on somebody's life. (EDIT: without that person's agreement, of course)
A contract proposition, as in the last statement, could be seen as a threat. A threat of violence is also a violation of the non aggression principle. (e.g., if you shoot towards a crowd but don't hit anyone, you're still acting criminally).
What makes this poll an interesting thought exercise is the fact that, the way the last statement is made, it does indeed create a criminal contract proposition, so, a threat, but to no specific victim.
Perhaps any blue-eyed person could claim to be a victim of such threat and initiate aggression against such contract proposition. I would argue for that. Again, consider the example of the guy who shoots towards a crowd. Even if he doesn't hit anyone, everybody on that crowd was threatened by him. Everybody on the crowd could claim to be a victim.
Making a criminal contract is criminal by itself. You can't obviously make a contract on somebody's life. (EDIT: without that person's agreement, of course)
A contract proposition, as in the last statement, could be seen as a threat. A threat of violence is also a violation of the non aggression principle. (e.g., if you shoot towards a crowd but don't hit anyone, you're still acting criminally).
What makes this poll an interesting thought exercise is the fact that, the way the last statement is made, it does indeed create a criminal contract proposition, so, a threat, but to no specific victim.
Perhaps any blue-eyed person could claim to be a victim of such threat and initiate aggression against such contract proposition. I would argue for that. Again, consider the example of the guy who shoots towards a crowd. Even if he doesn't hit anyone, everybody on that crowd was threatened by him. Everybody on the crowd could claim to be a victim.
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.
The color of the eyes isn't the point, it's the scenario. Replace it with creed, color, religion, whatever you like.
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.
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.
There's a big difference. In the second case, only the forum owner's vote is relevant.
Since this seems like the kind of crowd that would be more inclined to push further down the list, I'd be interested in seeing what the public opinion is here and what arguments people can raise about where to draw the line.
Jump to: