[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 4:43 AM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> Hello Jason,
>
> If we start to talk probability, isn't there a risk of a kind of
> abductio ad absurdum? I mean, if you extend that concept, it can be a
> glance, a look, an unkind word, or perhaps two people who, without being
> aware of each other, nudged a third into action.
>
> I think it would become close to impossible to draw a line for guilt
> with this methodology in the real world.
>
> Actions have the benefit of being ver tangible. Motivations, and
> inspirations are not, which makes things very difficult to judge fairly.
>
>
The line is surely blurry, but in criminal law there is the crime
of "criminally negligent homicide," which is when someone knowingly created
a situation that had a high likelihood of death.

I suppose my question was whether speech alone could (or should) ever meet
this definition.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240819/02d18342/attachment.htm>