[ExI] UK now jailing people for unapproved online posts

[efc at disroot.org]

On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 
> 
> 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

Thank you for the clarification Jason. I think, the my short answer is
that I agree with Rafal overall. Maybe I have some nitpicking about the
theory but nothing worth talking about. So this probability is related
to speech, and that introducing it will create even more uncertainty to
the detriment of everyone.

In case of actions, as you rightly point out, there is already
uncertainty, and that is one of the reasons that many countries to not
have the death penalty, since the penalty is permanent and fits badly
with the probability of mistakes.

The probability of processes dealing with actions is regrettable but a
sad fact of being human and in posession of imperfect information. =(