[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024, 2:40 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>  -----------------
>

I find this command-and-control exception interesting, as we can extend it
to a "probabilistic command-and-control." Assume you have one million
twitter followers, and let us also assume for the sake of argument that one
in a million people are unstable enough that they would act violently given
some opportunity or encouragement.

Then, knowing this, would it become  command-and-control of a violent act
for you, having one million followers, and knowing that one of them is
likely to be unstable enough to act violently, to release the personal
address of someone while disparaging that same person to all one million of
your followers?

How high does the probability have to be before an act of speech becomes an
act of violence?

(Note: I am a strong advocate of free speech but I consider this case
interesting. Clearly every act of speech has some probability of
instigating action, and one cannot be blamed for the existence of small
minority of unstable people, but putting the two together, with a large
enough audience, appears to enable a loophole that could allow one to act
like a mafia boss)

Jason




>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240817/35616ea5/attachment.htm>