[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 2:01 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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!
>

Rafal,

I appreciate your thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. I find I largely
agree with it.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240819/e434e5f7/attachment.htm>