[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 3:14 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 1:51 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> It is evil to act (e.g. imprison somebody) against speech, because speech
>> is not an act.
>>
>> The only legitimate response to speech is speech, or a refusal of
>> association, never an act of violence.
>>
>
> What about calls to violence, or other imminent lawless action?
>

### Speech is sacred. How one acts in response to speech is the
responsibility of the listener, not the speaker. Whoever commits
illegitimate violence must be punished, no matter what he listened or not
listened to.

Of course, if there is a command-and-control relationship between a speaker
and an actor, the speaker's words are no longer simply speech. When a mafia
boss orders a kill, both the boss and the underling are guilty of violence.
 -----------------

>
> What about defamation, in circumstances where the afflicted is not
> afforded anywhere near equal opportunity of speech to set the record
> straight?
>

### Speech is sacred. The attacker's speech and the defender's speech are
weighed and measured. Whosoever is found wanting, shall be ignored.The
truthsayer will be elevated, the liar's words will fall on deaf ears. All
speech is sacred but only some speech deserves a hearing.
 -----------------

>
> What about giving instructions that a machine is programmed to act
> upon, upon perceiving those instructions?
>

### When a command-and-control relationship exists between a speaker and an
actor, whether human or machine, words are no longer speech, they are
actions, since there is no deliberation of an independent mind on the
pathway from the speaker to the actor's action.

Speech is thought made tangible. This is a part of a definition, not an
aphorism. Speech alters thought. Sounds that directly impinge on reality,
not through the sieve of a mind, are mere physical phenomena, even if they
may have the form of words. Such words are actions and are not sacred, they
are mundane.
 -------------------

>
> What about transmitting or broadcasting stolen intellectual property, or
> other unlawfully obtained information such as someone else's passwords?
> (Or personally identifiable information, such as home address, as part of
> an indirect call for action, such as a request for someone to anonymously
> firebomb a hated person's house or to drive by it and shoot whoever is
> there?)
>

### The tangible manifestations of thought belong to the thinker, unless
bestowed on others explicitly or implicitly. Unwanted thought-reading or
unwanted acquisition of tangible but private manifestations of thought are
thought-theft, as heinous a crime as the theft of things. It's not free
speech if the words you say were stolen.
 -------------------

>
> The list of exceptions to absolute free speech, that have been found
> necessary in practice to sustain a functioning society, is not empty.
> (Even if, with modern building codes and safety systems, literally shouting
> "fire" in a crowded theater might not make the cut any more.)
>

### I have yet to encounter a claimed exception to the sanctity of speech
as defined above ("Thought made into a tangible property") that wouldn't
crumble after a moment of deliberation.

We are spirits and thought is our sacred essence. Speech is thought that
enters the lower realms while in transit to other spirits, therefore it is
sacred.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240817/ac3e05bb/attachment-0001.htm>