Ethics of free speech in relation to violence

[Ana the Ist]

I did notice your disingenuous question that had nothing to do with the topic at hand but chose not to answer as to not derail the thread. Something that tends happens a lot when you are involved.

It's the same topic.

I gave my position, have the courage to do the same.

 

[LockeeDeck]

It's the same topic.

I gave my position, have the courage to do the same.

You did and I thank you for giving it, I simply wished to engage with the ramifications of such a position, it's unfortunate you do not have the courage to do that.

As for my own position, that's a fair question. The whole reason I made this thread was because I wasn't sure on my own position on the matter. It is a complex question.

It surprises me how many hold your position, that leaders hold no responsibility outside of direct orders. This strikes me as idealistic in thinking that ideologies hold no sway in the minds of men. I don't agree with this position.

The king bore ill will against the priest and the knights knew this, the leaders will was known and an idle word was taken as command and executed as such. Perhaps an accident of miscommunication but surely leaders are responsible for accidents as much as a driver is for losing control and hitting another car.

 

[Bradskii]

You did and I thank you for giving it, I simply wished to engage with the ramifications of such a position, it's unfortunate you do not have the courage to do that.

As for my own position, that's a fair question. The whole reason I made this thread was because I wasn't sure on my own position on the matter. It is a complex question.

It surprises me how many hold your position, that leaders hold no responsibility outside of direct orders. This strikes me as idealistic in thinking that ideologies hold no sway in the minds of men. I don't agree with this position.

The king bore ill will against the priest and the knights knew this, the leaders will was known and an idle word was taken as command and executed as such. Perhaps an accident of miscommunication but surely leaders are responsible for accidents as much as a driver is for losing control and hitting another car.

Talking of kings... consider Richard IV (from Sparknotes, to save me paraphrasing the actual text). In Windsor Castle, where the new King Henry IV (a.k.a. Bolingbroke) now resides, a nobleman called Sir Piers Exton is talking with his servants. He tells them that King Henry has asked his audience of courtiers, "Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?"

This 'living fear' is Richard, who he disposed. And the manner in which Henry had taken power is causing no little guilt. But he didn't want to order Richard's death to assuage that guilty conscience - he only wanted the guilt to end. Yet he is in some ways happy that he is dead.

Did the terms he used render him guilty to a certain extent?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You did and I thank you for giving it, I simply wished to engage with the ramifications of such a position,

You want to speculate?

As for my own position, that's a fair question. The whole reason I made this thread was because I wasn't sure on my own position on the matter. It is a complex question.

It seems less so to me.

The main problem, as I see it, is literally anything can be misinterpreted.

The guy who shot Lennon was inspired by Salinger's Catcher In The Rye. That's clearly a misinterpretation.

The guy who shot Reagan was trying to impress Jodie Foster, after watching Taxi Driver. Clearly a misinterpretation.

Language is imperfect. It's got a wide variance of meaning....sometimes even with context.

I would rather risk the possibility of bad actors misinterpreting words over the stifling of free speech.

 

[Bradskii]

I would rather risk the possibility of bad actors misinterpreting words over the stifling of free speech.

But you'd agree that there would be a line. Which crossed, would convict the person making the speech.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But you'd agree that there would be a line. Which crossed, would convict the person making the speech.

That line would be one where interpretation is of the sort that is clearly a reasonable interpretation.

Let's imagine a mob confronting another mob....

The person who gathered the one mob yells into a megaphone "let's show them whose streets/town/city this is"....and the mob starts attacking the other.

I think one can reasonably call that incitement to riot....but not conspiracy to commit murder if someone gets killed.

 

[LockeeDeck]

You want to speculate?

I simply wonder what consequences would be if the majority held this view.

Would Charles Manson have gone free? Would ISIS recruiters still be allowed on social media?

It seems less so to me.

The main problem, as I see it, is literally anything can be misinterpreted.

The guy who shot Lennon was inspired by Salinger's Catcher In The Rye. That's clearly a misinterpretation.

The guy who shot Reagan was trying to impress Jodie Foster, after watching Taxi Driver. Clearly a misinterpretation.

Language is imperfect. It's got a wide variance of meaning....sometimes even with context.

I would rather risk the possibility of bad actors misinterpreting words over the stifling of free speech.

Indeed language is imperfect, I would contend that a good leader would know this and use language in measured way as to not cause chaos.

There is also the issue of interpreting words exactly as intended. Charles Manson didn't directly order any murders but murder was a part of his ideology that his followers absorbed from him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I simply wonder what consequences would be if the majority held this view.

In an increasingly populated world with social media giving endless room for misinterpretation?

I would expect to see more misinterpretation.

Would Charles Manson have gone free?

Under testimony his follower, "Tex" Watson said he was given a direct order to kill.

So....no.

.Would ISIS recruiters still be allowed on social media?

A terrorist organization?

Indeed language is imperfect, I would contend that a good leader would know this and use language in measured way as to not cause chaos.

There is also the issue of interpreting words exactly as intended. Charles Manson didn't directly order any murders but murder was a part of his ideology that his followers absorbed from him.

Perhaps you don't know that case as well as you think.

 

[LockeeDeck]

A terrorist organization?

Yes a terrorist organization, more specifically it's recruiters. The recruiters can and have been located in western countries and do not commit any crimes themselves. They simply give ISIS propaganda and instructions on how to join ISIS to impressionable people.

Facebook and twitter wishing to stop the recruiters employed heavy handed AI censoring. Were they wrong to do so?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes a terrorist organization, more specifically it's recruiters. The recruiters can and have been located in western countries and do not commit any crimes themselves. They simply give ISIS propaganda and instructions on how to join ISIS to impressionable people.

Facebook and twitter wishing to stop the recruiters employed heavy handed AI censoring. Were they wrong to do so?

It's a terrorist organization. They recruit people to commit or support acts of terrorism. This is illegal and I don't see any relationship with your previous examples.

 

[LockeeDeck]

It's a terrorist organization. They recruit people to commit or support acts of terrorism. This is illegal and I don't see any relationship with your previous examples.

Free speech protections in the US are broad enough that I'm not actually sure if anything the recruiters did was actually illegal, after all it's legal to publish books that detail how to build bombs. That being said I would agree that suppressing terrorism is a valid reason to censor.

The relationship is in harm, an ISIS recruiter is not doing harm on their own but their words would compel other to do harm. In the same way a careless leader could cause harm by having their followers execute implied orders.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Free speech protections in the US are broad enough that I'm not actually sure if anything the recruiters did was actually illegal, after all it's legal to publish books that detail how to build bombs.

You're talking about the Turner Diaries?

I can understand why it might seem that way, and you might be correct....but consider that there may be a law and that book is simply so old it's "grandfathered" in.

If you're not familiar with the term....it's the recognition that we don't punish people who are following the law of their time just because the law changed later.

There's many fully automatic weapons that purchasable in the 80s that are still ownable because they aren't illegal. They aren't purchasable new (sort of) but they aren't illegal because they were bought legally.

Now I don't know if that's the case with the books you're referring to. I don't know if I'd even recommend that you look into such things since your search history can be used to incriminate you. I'm simply saying that it may be the possibility a few legal books exist....because they were written before any laws against them .

That being said I would agree that suppressing terrorism is a valid reason to censor.

The relationship is in harm, an ISIS recruiter is not doing harm on their own but their words would compel other to do harm. In the same way a careless leader could cause harm by having their followers execute implied orders.

What I understand of online terrorism recruitment....it may start off subtle, but by the time they get to planning attacks, it's anything but subtle.

 

[LockeeDeck]

You're talking about the Turner Diaries?

I can understand why it might seem that way, and you might be correct....but consider that there may be a law and that book is simply so old it's "grandfathered" in.

If you're not familiar with the term....it's the recognition that we don't punish people who are following the law of their time just because the law changed later.

There's many fully automatic weapons that purchasable in the 80s that are still ownable because they aren't illegal. They aren't purchasable new (sort of) but they aren't illegal because they were bought legally.

Now I don't know if that's the case with the books you're referring to. I don't know if I'd even recommend that you look into such things since your search history can be used to incriminate you. I'm simply saying that it may be the possibility a few legal books exist....because they were written before any laws against them.

I was actually thinking of the anarchist cookbook but the Turner Diaries fits that mold as well, perhaps more so as it is used by white supremacists to spread their ideology. Neither are actually illegal to own and while I think the companies would be strongly discouraged from doing so I don't think they are illegal to publish.

What I understand of online terrorism recruitment....it may start off subtle, but by the time they get to planning attacks, it's anything but subtle.

For domestic white supremacist terrorism that might be true. For ISIS it was more a matter of getting bodies to the front lines of Syria. Although apparently there is a movement to get white supremacists to the front lines of the Crimea conflict on the Russian side to train in military tactics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was actually thinking of the anarchist cookbook but the Turner Diaries fits that mold as well, perhaps more so as it is used by white supremacists to spread their ideology. Neither are actually illegal to own and while I think the companies would be strongly discouraged from doing so I don't think they are illegal to publish.

Publishing copyrights probably have the relevant dates. I don't really know the content of either....but from what I understand, the anarchist cookbook is filled with nonsense (which may or may not be sprinkled with valid information) the Turner Diaries may not give an actual formula, but it can be gleaned from the narrative itself. I'm not sure, I've read neither.

For domestic white supremacist terrorism that might be true. For ISIS it was more a matter of getting bodies to the front lines of Syria. Although apparently there is a movement to get white supremacists to the front lines of the Crimea conflict on the Russian side to train in military tactics.

Well there was that aspect of it....however a considerable amount of radicalization happened online with the objective of creating in country terrorists.

I believe white supremacists began adopting similar tactics but fortunately, it seems the groups are too disparate, too small, too disorganized, and lacking any significant leadership.