[ExI] pay to not play

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Dec 6 07:05:46 UTC 2022

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 11:42 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 7:56 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> All speech is sacred. Everyone must have the right to say anything and
>> everything and no one may be legitimately punished for it (except if he
>> voluntarily relinquished some of his rights to speak by entering into a
>> contract).
> Out of curiosity, what's your stance on:
> * Fraud?

### You should be able to lie to your heart's content. However, fraud is
much more than intentionally untrue speech - it includes other actions,
such as receiving a fraudulently elicited payment or other consideration,
and it involves clearly delineated harms. So if a competent court
determines that your behavior meets the criteria for fraud and another
citizen was harmed by that fraud, you should be liable for the harms you

> * Libel?
> * Slander?

### The victim of these actions should be able to petition a competent
court to make a pronouncement regarding the defamatory statements, to the
effect that the court believes they were defamatory and to append the label
"slanderer" to the person or organization that made such statements.
Members of the public should be then able to update their beliefs that were
influenced by defamation, and should be able to update on how much trust
they would have in other statements by the slanderer. The intent of this
approach is to allow independent assessments of truth to exist, with the
help of due process, rather than have a centralized authority potentially
using the excuse of preventing slander to punish speech. Slander would then
be punished by members of the public independently choosing to shun the
slanderer, rather than by the strong arm of the law.

As you see I am against the system where fines or imprisonment could be
imposed for mere speech, however malicious it may be.


> * As a specific example, those who deny the Holocaust happened?

### Similar to above. MOPs could choose to shun the Holocaust deniers, to
scream angrily at them, call them "Holocaust deniers", etc. No need to put
anybody behind bars.


> * ...who deny the Moon landings happened?

### Amusing idiots. Why would a reasonable person waste breath discussing
their opinions, or waste law enforcement resources prosecuting them?


> * ...who claim the Sandy Hook massacre never happened?

### As Holocaust-deniers.


> * Contracts obtained by misrepresentation?

### You mean fraud? See above.


> * Contracts agreed to under life-threatening duress?

### How is that related to free speech?


> * Contracts where one party forges the second party's signature and uses
> this to trick third parties into enforcing it against the second party?

### You mean fraud? See above.


> If I am free to say anything, that includes saying that you agreed to give
> me all your material wealth and then commit suicide right now, which you
> are in obvious breach of because you are still alive.  Are you sure that
> speech of that nature should not be punished?

### Generally, if the statements are sufficiently stupid so as not be
believed by a reasonable person, there is no reason to punish them. If they
are believable and are used to defraud somebody, then that fraud should be

As you see, I am making a distinction between speech, which must not be
punished by law (but may be punished by shunning or other non-violent
actions) vs. other actions, which may be punished if harmful (in certain
limited circumstances).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20221206/9b91aa2e/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list