RoR: Forum

"Loompanics" is a garbage dump for nihilist trash.

Post 61

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:08am

That's only fair, but it is totally different to censor my words or to prove me guilty only because of my words and not due to my deeds.

So, you think writing about your wish to murder is incriminating, but does not make you a criminal?

However, if investigated and you are found to be actually planning out the murder, the publication should still be allowed to circulate? No matter if another psychopath picks it up afterwards and is convinced by the publication, that yes, the victims must be murdered.

What I am trying to square here and yet no one has addressed is that I always thought that it made sense that it should be a crime to incite a murder.

And yet everyone here is suggesting that to incite murder is a valid form of free speech.

How can it be both?

Post 62

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:19am

Marcus Bachler said: "... I always thought that it made sense that it should be a crime to incite a murder."

Do you believe in free will?

Marcus, I hereby order you take off your clothes and dance naked in the street!

If you believe that each person makes their own choices, then only actions count in a criminal court case. Personally, you can dislike someone who thinks of murder -- or who thinks of cupcakes -- but in terms of the law, if we look at ideas, opinions, words, gestures, paintings, etc., etc., ... anything except actions, then what standard of objectivity is there?

(By the way are you naked yet? Why not? Did I not order you to get naked? I incite you! I command you! I plead! I cajole! I entice! ... are you naked yet?)

Post 63

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:22am

Clarence,

I'm not sure we're reading the same thread. If you can, please answer the following questions. Apparently you did not see them the first time.

What exactly qualifies as a threat?

Does it matter whether or not the threat is directed at you, precisely?

If so, how do you determine whether or not a particular threat is addressed, or should be of concern, to you?

Do you have an objective way to determine any of this or are you comfortable going around beating people up, dropping nukes, violating rights, etc, based upon your generalizations and estimations - citing YOUR right to life as all the validation you need?

MCD

Post 64

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:42am

Marcus, I hereby order you take off your clothes and dance naked in the street!

Michael,

So you are telling me that I could find a murderer and say, "I hereby order you to kill Mr M. You will find him at this address." He says fine.

Then he kills you. However, I have not committed a crime. I am not responsible. The law cannot touch me.

Post 65

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:03am

Marcus wrote: "So you are telling me that I could find a murderer and say, "I hereby order you to kill Mr M. You will find him at this address." He says fine. Then he kills you. However, I have not committed a crime. I am not responsible. The law cannot touch me."

1. Well, I do not know about "the law." I live in America and it is a pretty complicated place, but generally, American law says that you have to do a heck of a lot more than talk. Paying to have someone killed is against the law in most places I know of in the USA. In the UK things might be different. Maybe talking about it is illegal where you are. I do not know.

2. SHOULD it be illegal? You are asking me for a philosophical discussion on the capital-L Law? Then, I say, "No." Simply saying something to someone is not compelling in any sense. You did not compel them and an argument for your culpablility is not compelling, either.

Maybe you should have a POLL run on this to see if there is some statistical norm of beliefs among this group of Objectivists. My sense is that you, Clarence, and some others are in a minority on this because your beliefs are inconsistent with more basic truths.

Post 66

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:31am

I always thought that it made sense that it should be a crime to incite a murder.

I am with you on this one, Marcus. Several people here are trying to mix things up. We are not talking about naked butt or naked breast, or fictions here. The twin towers of WTC are gone, and innocent people have been killed. These are no fictions. You and me could be at wrong place and wrong time tomorrow and be killed or injured too because there are people out there who really are actively trying to kill us whenever they can. The terrorist propaganda is made by knowledgeable people who genuinely advocate murder of infidels and support those actual killings. As soon as they give one dollar to reward the action of the killers, as soon as they give their sanction to those killings, they initiated force against us.

Perhaps some still remember Orion Reasonor a while back who advocated mass killing of Muslims. Why the majority of SOLOists censured him? Why Linz and Joe put him under moderation? If SOLO had given Orion the freedom of speech for the things he advocated, I certainly would not be here. The terrorist propaganda goes much further than Orion�s opinions. It is directly connected to the real terror events. Why the different attitude?

To me, this (terrorist propaganda) is a clear case that is way over on the other side of the line that freedom of speech defines. Though I don't claim to know what is the best tactics to deal with the terrorists and their supporters. But that is entirely another matter.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 7/27, 11:54am)

Post 67

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:57am

I am in perfect agreement with you Hong. Very well put.

Post 68

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:02pm

Everyone appears to be forgetting the principle - that of "Clear and Present Danger" -- by which speech, for the most part, has been weighed by our courts. It's according to that principle that yelling "Fire" in a theater is illegal, but advocating totalitarianism is not. It is not a perfect principle, but it is an adequate rule of thumb. And note that such speech is punished only after the fact; "prior restraint" is a legal and moral horror.

Barbara

Post 69

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:18pm

Marcus wrote: "So, you think writing about your wish to murder is incriminating, but does not make you a criminal?"

No it doesn't make you a criminal because you may just have uttered it when you were really really angry. So long as you get a grip on yourself after you calm down your only "crime" is contributing to global warming by expelling great gouts of hot air.
If the police arrested people for spouting off when they got angry every married-couple/frustrated-parent in the world would be behind bars at one time or another.

IMHO for the issuing of a threat to be considered criminal you need some evidence that the threat was likely to be acted upon. For instance if the utterer offered (or was offered) an inducement to carry out his threat. The promise of being permitted to deflower 50 virgins in paradise could be construed as an inducement in the current Islamic-intellectual climate.

As to whether the writings of a criminal should be censored: I guess that depends on exactly what is in those writings.

For instance Charles Manson might decide to publish specific instructions about how to kill a particular person. This sort of nonsense should be frowned upon. But rather than censorship, wouldn't a better solution would be to levy the criminal & publisher for the cost of thwarting that plan (or in Charles' case, attaching him - hamster-like - to an electricity generating exercise-wheel until he'd generated enough kilowatts for the victim to pay for his indiscretion). This would invalidating the instructions & punishing the perpetrators without introducing the precedent of censorship into the fabric of the law.

Thoughts?

Post 70

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:22pm

Thanks for your comments everyone.

Michael,

So you mean paying it, but not saying it, should be illegal. You could potentially brainwash the person too and make them believe that the murder was their only way to heaven, or approval, or a better world, etc... As many cult leaders have done in the past, including Bin Laden.

What you are saying in effect is, if Bin Laden, has never actually killed anyone nor paid someone to kill another person, then he is completely exonerated of any crime. In fact the USA should not even be able to put out a warrant for him to be captured dead or alive, right? You could argue that he has only exercised his free speech, it was his followers wish to carry his orders out.

Hong,

Yes, I agree, if the Terrorist Propaganda can be proven to directly incite violence or murder, then the authors should be arrested and the publication or website should be banned. I have looked into it, and in the US and the UK it is difficult to prove, but the law against incitement still stands.

In fact, in one of the few cases where this law has been effective in the US has been to shut down websites that have put the names of doctors that carry out abortions on a death list. These doctors were then methodically murdered.

Barabra,

I agree with you there, it is not a perfect principle - but courts have upheld it quite sensibly. It is not an easy "case" to win, which is a good thing - the link does have to be proven beyond a doubt.

There are other forms of state censorship that objectivists also do not question. For example, censorship of the proceedings of court cases for privacy and impartiality; also intelligence information or Government proceedings vital for national security.

It is not a case of - all state censorship is wrong.

Robert,

This would invalidate the instructions & punishing the perpetrators without introducing the precedent of censorship into the fabric of the law.

I don't agree. If the publication has been proven to have directly incited a murder, then it should be withdrawn if deemed by a court potentially able to incite further murders.

Post 71

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:02pm

"SHOULD it be illegal? You are asking me for a philosophical discussion on the capital-L Law? Then, I say, "No." Simply saying something to someone is not compelling in any sense. You did not compel them and an argument for your culpablility is not compelling, either."

1) If, say, you paid Clarence to kill me and he did so, would you be liable for his action since you paid him, even though you did not 'compel' him?

2) For that matter, if you threatened his life as incentive for him to kill me and he did so (instead of killing you as he'd have had the right to do in that situation), would you also be liable for his action then? If so, would it absolve him of any responsibility, or simply make you both culprits?

Post 72

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:20pm

Matthew, oh really??? It's this thread I'm commenting on? Quit with that childish bull.

You're damn right MY right to life is all the validation I need. If the choice is between you and me, there is no choice. You want to harm me or you support someone who wants to harm me, thats all that matters, period. You can say whatever the hell you want but I ain't Voltaire, I ain't dying for your right to talk shit about me; say the wrong thing and you goin' to have to deal with it. If you support people who want to kill me, why should I give a damn about you and your 'rights'? Give me one good reason why I shouldn't shoot first and ask questions later, if at all.

Post 73

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:35pm

Marcus, I believe it's generally accepted that bin Laden has financed terrorists, the payment doesn't have to be direct. Aiding and abetting go beyond speech.

Post 74

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:36pm

Clarence, we're quite aware (in many ways) that you're no Voltaire.

Post 75

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:32pm

I don't agree. If the publication has been proven to have directly incited a murder, then it should be withdrawn if deemed by a court potentially able to incite further murders.

Ok so far that applies to the Bible, the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kamph, Catcher on the Rye (John Lennon) shall I go on?

And that Rand endorsement of smoking seems pretty suspect too.

---Landon

Post 76

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:32pm

I believe it's generally accepted that bin Laden has financed terrorists, the payment doesn't have to be direct. Aiding and abetting go beyond speech.

Why does the payment of money make it a special case? In what way does it not need be direct?
If you paid a terrorist 50 cents or 50 000 dollars to murder people would that make it just as criminal?

If the terrorist did it as a special favour to you without payment, would that mean that you have committed no crime?

If the terrorist does it because you gave him a convincing argument why the world would be better place if he murders as many non-believers as possible, and your intention was that he indeed would do it, would that make your actions legal?

What you imply is that as long as the Bin Laden's of this world keep their finances in order, then they may continue legally inciting their followers to murder non-believers for as long as they like. The law can't touch them.

Post 77

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:49pm

Ok so far that applies to the Bible, the Koran, the Communist Manifesto, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kamph, Catcher on the Rye (John Lennon) shall I go on?

No, because you are wrong.

I did not write "any work that has ever inspired murder."

Although I have not read all of these, I don't believe that these works listed have directly incited murder.

Catcher in the Rye did not instruct anyone to go out and kill John Lennon, or a pop star, nor was there even a murder in the story. Besides, it is a work of fiction. Characters and events in the book are completely fictional.

I don't recall the Bible ever stating that one should go and murder someone.

Mein Kampf does not make the case for murder or violence either.

You seem to be forgetting that I stated that the "link does have to be proven beyond a doubt".
That is not just my opinion. That is how the law against incitement is in the US and UK now.

Post 78

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:13pm

True enough on some of your arguments. But I noticed the conspicuous absence of the Koran itself from your lists. Just because the sentiment gets updated, modernized, and specified doesn't change it freedom of religion is freedom of religion. When activities to carry those evil ideas out begin to be developed through terror cells and plans of attack (which are usually done on a far too individual and secretive basis to risk PRINTING) does crime begin.

But as to the incitement of murder in the bible each of the ten commandments had a specific (fatal) penalty applied to them. And there are other instances. I've forgotten the specifics.

I will concede one other point though. Are you at all familiar with the american white supremacist movement? A number of the most respected authors (within their own circles) avoid calls to mass murder on a scale of a race war, but they often call for "Lone wolves." Individuals who go on a single mass murder spree against other races, usually ending in suicide. Material of this type is obviously dangerous, but having it out in the open would make it easier to track at risk individuals, and if it becomes officially banned we've taken the first step to becoming the very thing we despise.

Again on your comment about fiction did you not get the Galilao example, sometimes people hide controversial (sometimes dangerous) ideas in the guise of fiction to get mass publication that would not be possible otherwise. So especially if material like this does get banned, that means fiction isn't off limits.

---Landon

Post 79

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:14pm