[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor

Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Apr 28 16:30:10 UTC 2009

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
<painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> Il 28/04/2009 11.52, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
>> OTOH, what exactly is the connection between Holmes reasoning on the
>> punishment of false alarms and a possible claim, e.g., that the
>> Night of Saint Bartholomew never took place?
> I'm not an expert, but Holmes was not reasoning but claiming that the
> drafted youngs would be sent to a slaughterhouse and other, and asked them
> to act.

Yes. I was speaking in general to the reasoning by which he took the
false-alarm-in-a-theatre argument as a reasoable example of a possible
exception to an unconditional freedom of speech.

> The problem is when the "findings" are used to disprove the right to the
> existence of Israel, that is right to kick the Jews in the sea, the
> existence of a world-wide Jews conspiracy aimed to dominate the world and
> justify attacks of Jews everywhere as a way to "defend themselves".

I agree, the problem being mainly a non-sequitur. When exactly did the
fact of having suffered genocidal attentions at the hands of enemies
become a requirement to establish a national entity?

>> Label, defamation, inducement, instigation and apology of crime are
>> distinct crimes, which are already punished by independent
>> provisions,
> I'm not sure they are all punished in the US.
> Is "apology of crime" a crime in the US?

Mmhhh, good question. Any local jurist cares to answer to that one?
"Apology of crime" in civil law is the conduct consisting more or less
in any propaganda aimed at exalting a given criminal conduct as such
and exciting public praises thereof.

It is however distinct from "inducement" or "istigation" which
requires an active, positive  pressure to persuade one or more people
to commit the crime concerned, as in "Please do it" or "You must do
it" rather than "Doing it is the right thing to do".

>> and I do believe that a community may live well enough by
>> restricting prosecution, as far as speech is concerned, to those
>> conducts.
> I hope so.
> But we must understand that the standard become more stringent as the
> individuals become less prone to act after inflammatory speeches and less
> violent (Flynn Effect? less youths around?).

Possibly so, in terms of economic analysis of law. But this of course
would suggest that restrictions to freedom of speech should be
progressively... restricted, rather than expanded.

> What would happen if we import low IQ people, with a different morality,
> that regard violence as a normal way to address problems (from beating their
> wives and children to raping not enough covered meat (AKA kafir women) or
> rioting for an allegation of a flushed Quran).

What about not importing them in the first place? :-)

Yet, it appears to me that the US managed to survive with both a less
"timid" population *and* with more a more libertarian stance on free
speech, as opposed to more conformist and peaceful (or perhaps cynic)
countries with a more stringent regulation thereof...

Stefano Vaj

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list