[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 9:23 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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)
>
>
### Indeed, mundane reality has a way of intruding into the sacred realms :)

There is a spectrum of possible connections between one person's speech and
another person's actions. An abstract or seemingly unrelated statement can
be grist for thought, lead to insights and eventual actions by many
different persons, some of whom may have diametrically opposed
interpretations and conclusions resulting in completely different actions
(but still in some way traceable to the original statement). A thought
leader (e.g. Al Sharpton) may vilify an ethnic group (e.g. white people)
which may in some vague way increase the number of crimes (e.g. white bear
hunting incidents) against that group. There are religious leaders who do
not have direct control over their followers but may issue general calls to
action, such as a condemnation of Salman Rushdie by some imams, that are
followed by volunteers. There are criminal organizations with a pattern of
coordinated action among specific individuals (gangs) where the leader's
specific instructions lead to a specific person being "whacked" - and there
are penalties for disobeying such instructions. Officers issue orders to
kill people, and disobedient soldiers are taken out back and summarily shot.

I think that words stop being speech and become action when there is a
feedback loop between the speaker and the listener that suppresses the
listener's judgment regarding the specific words that are spoken. If the
listener can reflect on what he hears and can choose what to do on a
case-by-case basis, what he hears is just speech. If there is a firm social
framework that connects the speaker and listener, such that the speaker
expects obedience and the listener feels obliged to obey regardless of his
opinion, then the words are action, not speech.

I think that the mere probability that an act of speech triggers some
action is not the right basis to justify a violent reprisal against a
speaker. Al Sharpton's words predictably resulted in the killings of
innocent people but regardless of the number of people killed, Al Sharpton
should not go to prison. What matters is the existence of the
command-and-control relationship between the speaker and the listener - if
it exists, then the speaker and the listener are judged as parts of a
whole, and the speaker is responsible for the actions of the listener.

I think that the state should not be allowed to act against speakers,
regardless of what we may believe are the results of their speech, even if
millions die (e.g Karl Marx who created the ideology that justified the
butchery of over a hundred million people). The state may legitimately only
act against actors, which may include speakers bound to listeners by the
command-and-control relationship.

 The reason why I think so is that determining if there is some degree of
connection between ideas is much more difficult and open to interpretation
than determining whether a command-and-control relationship exists between
specific persons.

A prosecutor may establish that a gang leader has ordered Johnny to kill
Manny and there is little risk of this investigation morphing into a
totalitarian nightmare. There is a relatively firm basis for judgment.
However, when the law allows a British magistrate to use handwaving about
"incitement" as the basis for jailing Americans then there is eventually no
limit to the power of such a magistrate. Claims of connections between
ideas cannot be allowed to empower the state against the people or else we
will all end up under the boot.

All speech is sacred, even evil speech that prompts stupid or evil people
to evil action. We the people reserve to us and only to us the right to
judge ideas, conveyed by speech, because ideas are our sacred spiritual
essence. If an inhuman entity, state, ideology or corporation, were to
wrest this essence from us then our lives are forfeit.

When talking about the importance of free speech I am very consciously
choosing an exalted, religious rather than mundane vocabulary. We are not
talking about a minor political scuffle. We are talking about the holy war
to save our spirits.The sacred must not be defiled. If a holy war must be
fought to protect our numinous essence, it must be fought at any cost.
There are no ands, ifs or buts, all speech must be free.

All speech is sacred!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240818/0214a81c/attachment.htm>