Freedom of Speech

[luizpauloalbers]

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example?

What about if someone (let's thing of a public figure) advocates crimes such as murder and raping to everyone?

What are your thoughts about that?

[Zerubbabel]

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example?

 

 

If given the premise of dangerous knowledge then we choose which of the following we should (morally) do with it (?):

 

Give it to everybody   -or-  Limit it's dissemination to a small elite group to use it as they will, that is to say- to their advantage. 

 

Neither option eliminates the danger inherent in the knowledge. The former option guarantees that the worst sort of people will have it. The later option guarantees an advantage to the elite group and possibly (if Lord Acton is correct) guaranteeing that they become the worst sort of people.

 

Perhaps such a conundrum is the reason that taboo speech is a cultural universal. 

 

.

[dsayers]

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example?

 

Punish how? Since the publishing of information isn't the initiation of the use of force, it really wouldn't make a difference what others thought of it.

[luizpauloalbers]

Zerubbabel, this answer was actually really close to mine, it is easy to see that we shouldn't have a regulatory agency controlling these informations, so it would contain them only for them as you sad. What my question really want to talk about is should the guy who has these information be morally obligated to maintain it for himself?

Dsayers, Let's say that we can statistically prove that after the speech of this public figure advocating a specif crime, people have radically increased the crimes. Doesn't make any difference at all? The people who suffered the crimes have nothing to do with this public figures?

 

[dsayers]

I had asked you punish how? The answer to your initial question depends on this request for clarification.

[yagami]

I think the fact you used the word punish says something about how you think about these kind of issues and may be worth exploring one day. In a free society he would be dealt with the same way you deal with all generally unwanted behaviors. He would just be ostracized. If you advocate murder. Ostracized!. If you do something people dont like. Ostracized!  It really is that simple. The degree to which people ostracize will be determined by the community. We cant determine exactly what level of ostracism will occur but it will be appropriate to the offending behavior. 

[luizpauloalbers]

Yagami, I agree with you, I believe the best way of all is ostracize! But is it the only valid way? 

Dsayers, I actually don't know, my friend talked about a fine, but actually I get really confused with the term punishment, could this ever be consider an ethical action? Like the right to punish someone? For me it seems completely wrong in any circustance, as it seems for this one. What do you think?

[dsayers]

Fines are theft that go to a 3rd party's coffers, so most certainly unethical.

 

I've found that looking at these matters from a property rights standpoint makes it easy to understand for the most part. Let us suppose that I steal your car. Worded in terms of property rights, I have voluntarily created a debt to you in the amount of your car and whatever you invest in recovering that debt.

 

Sharing information is not creating a debt to anybody. There's no victim. Force used against somebody for sharing information would be the initiation of the use of force, which is unethical.

 

Ostracism is a way of punishing somebody by denying them access to you, your honesty, your labor, etc. It is not the initiation of the use of force, so you can make use of it for any reason you choose. Meaning that even if sharing information victimizes nobody, if you find the particular information being shared unsavory, then by all means do not associate with that person. Nothing unethical about that.

[HordOfTheFlies]

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example?

Einstein wrote a letter to FDR in 1939 warning about using Uranium to make a bomb which helped to start and accelerate the US's mission to build atomic machinery. The result of that is two bombs that killed over 130,000 people. Who should be punished for this? Would it have been better or worse if the letter was addressed to the public?

 

 

What about if someone (let's thing of a public figure) advocates crimes such as murder and raping to everyone?

 

Our current political class is calling for the razing of entire cultures. No one ever advocates harming 'everyone' because that always includes themselves. Anyone that supports the use of war as a way to negotiate is advocating murder though and it seems to be working for them.

 

Just my thoughts.

[yagami]

Yagami, I agree with you, I believe the best way of all is ostracize! But is it the only valid way? 

 

Dsayers, I actually don't know, my friend talked about a fine, but actually I get really confused with the term punishment, could this ever be consider an ethical action? Like the right to punish someone? For me it seems completely wrong in any circustance, as it seems for this one. What do you think?

 

I think it is the only moral way to stop unwanted behavior. There may be other ways that are thought up in the future so we'll have to wait for that. Keep in mind the ostracism of the future will be nothing like the ostracism of the past. Because there will be no public property you will essentially be banished.

[fractional slacker]

Punish how? Since the publishing of information isn't the initiation of the use of force, it really wouldn't make a difference what others thought of it.

Would you hold that viewpoint had Charles Manson published (hand written) notes expressing his opinion it would be good for the Tates to be murdered?

[dsayers]

Would you hold that viewpoint had Charles Manson published (hand written) notes expressing his opinion it would be good for the Tates to be murdered?

 

Is saying (regardless of medium) "it would be good for ____ to be murdered" the initiation of the use of force?

[AustinJames]

What if I said "It would be good if the POTUS were assassinated."  (Hello NSA)  Is that immoral?  What if I tell you that you can dissolve styrofoam into gasoline in order to make napalm?  Am I immoral now?  What if I tell you that people can be killed by constricting the carotid artery?  Am I immoral now?  Information is not immoral.  Intention is not immoral.  Only actions can be immoral.

[Pepin]

What if I said "It would be good if the POTUS were assassinated."  (Hello NSA)  Is that immoral?  What if I tell you that you can dissolve styrofoam into gasoline in order to make napalm?  Am I immoral now?  What if I tell you that people can be killed by constricting the carotid artery?  Am I immoral now?  Information is not immoral.  Intention is not immoral.  Only actions can be immoral.

 

I would disagree, as preference is what is measured to determine the ethicacy of an interaction. What distinguishes rape from love making is not the interaction, as sexual intercourse is common to both, but rather it is the opposing preferences.  

 

As argued in my post above, releasing information to people with immoral intentions is not ethical as it is somewhat equivalent to conspiring with a hitman. An intention is a promise to act in a particular way in the future.

 

Selling firearms is typically amoral, but if someone were to state their intention to shoot up a school to the shop owner, this would be considered conspiring.

 

To give another example, if two people are fighting on the street, and you throw one a bat, you are conspiring with them. Though it cannot be said that you are completely liable for damages or the fight, you involved yourself in the fight by giving someone a bat. In an everyday context, giving someone a bat is amoral.

 

A getaway driver may have not robbed the bank, but they knowingly aided the robbery.

 

To generalize this idea, when you are aware of a person preference to act against another's, and that they intend to act on that preference, providing the means and resources for them to do so supports and encourages their preference.

 

Knowledge of the intention is the determining factor in this.

[dsayers]

Pepin, I don't think your position is as precise as it needs to be. If somebody prefers to never have an ill word spoken of them, is this a standard binding upon others? I prefer to not lift heavy furniture, but I'll do it (consent) to help a friend out. I think consent is a more precise standard for determining if a behavior is the initiation of the use of force.

[fractional slacker]

Is saying (regardless of medium) "it would be good for ____ to be murdered" the initiation of the use of force?

No. It's not initiation of force by definition.

 

Would you care to answer the specific question I asked?

[dsayers]

No. It's not initiation of force by definition.

 

Would you care to answer the specific question I asked?

 

Didn't you just answer it? I said publishing isn't initiation of force, you asked if I'd maintain that if what was published was that somebody thought it was a good idea to murder, I repeated your question back to you without the specifics, you said it's not initiating force. I don't see a gap.

[Pepin]

Pepin, I don't think your position is as precise as it needs to be. If somebody prefers to never have an ill word spoken of them, is this a standard binding upon others? I prefer to not lift heavy furniture, but I'll do it (consent) to help a friend out. I think consent is a more precise standard for determining if a behavior is the initiation of the use of force.

 

If I understand you right, I think I would agree that consent might be more understandable in the context above. My intent was to use UPB type language to imply that UPB was the ethical standard.

[Tweety]

Hi!

 

My friend came to me with the dilemma of a guy having the recipe of a homemade bomb (strong as a nuclear bomb). Should this person be punished if he released this information to everyone on the internet for example?
 

 

Why would sharing knowledge of any kind be punishable? I do not see how it would be considered immoral. In that I agree with AustinJames (I think your post was to this general direction, correct me if i am wrong) and dsayers. I am certain there are a couple of million videos online showing people firing a weapon i.e. sharing the knowledge how to do it, no one is the least bit interested in punishing them.

 

Why do you specify/emphasize, that the person advocating murder or rape is a public figure? Why does this matter?

[J. D. Stembal]

I am reminded of a story I heard about a graduate student in the Denver area who was paid a visit by investigative agents after buying a large quantity of smoke alarms in order to conduct a radioactivity experiment at home. I am unable to determine the validity of the hearsay, but I think it demonstrates an important point. Knowledge, in itself, no matter how potentially dangerous, cannot be considered coercive force. I know that if I aim a handgun at you and pull the trigger, you will receive a bullet wound. This knowledge doesn't prove that I have an intent to harm you. This is why in a murder case, the court has to prove the murderer's intent to kill and that he also had the means to do so.

 

As for calling for the death of another, words cannot be considered an imposition of force. It is the deed that counts.

[Pepin]

As for calling for the death of another, words cannot be considered an imposition of force. It is the deed that counts.

I would be interested in a rebuttal to my arguements above which conclude the opposite. I do think there is some grey area, like someone saying off the cuff "the world would be better off if someone killed them", but I am interested that if my argument holds up in the more serious cases of advocating murder.

[Tweety]

I would disagree, as preference is what is measured to determine the ethicacy of an interaction. What distinguishes rape from love making is not the interaction, as sexual intercourse is common to both, but rather it is the opposing preferences.  

 

As argued in my post above, releasing information to people with immoral intentions is not ethical as it is somewhat equivalent to conspiring with a hitman. An intention is a promise to act in a particular way in the future.

 

Selling firearms is typically amoral, but if someone were to state their intention to shoot up a school to the shop owner, this would be considered conspiring.

 

To give another example, if two people are fighting on the street, and you throw one a bat, you are conspiring with them. Though it cannot be said that you are completely liable for damages or the fight, you involved yourself in the fight by giving someone a bat. In an everyday context, giving someone a bat is amoral.

 

A getaway driver may have not robbed the bank, but they knowingly aided the robbery.

 

To generalize this idea, when you are aware of a person preference to act against another's, and that they intend to act on that preference, providing the means and resources for them to do so supports and encourages their preference.

 

Knowledge of the intention is the determining factor in this.

 

You first say that releasing information to people with immoral intentions is not ethical, but your examples are not about releasing information.

 

To put your "giving a bat"- example more to a "releasing information"- context, it would go as follows:

"two people are fighting on the street, and you shout on the same street how to use a bat to maul the other guy." 

The information would thus be available for both parties.

 

Also selling fire arms is not releasing information. That is enabling the use of a firearm. A getaway driver is not telling the guys who robbed the bank, which way to take to get away the fastest and is not telling them how to drift in corners or make a scandinavian turn in order to drive the car faster (that would be releasing information) but is driving the car him/herself.

[Pepin]

I thank you for your response, though I am confused as to where my lengthy "post above" refrenced in that post is. It contained my actual argument, while that was a response in regard to prefrence and action, which is why it did not really focus on information.

 

I remember posting it as it gave me that annoying "needs approval" message. I do not assume it was censored, but maybe they accidentally rejected it or have not approved it yet??? Eh, I am a bit annoyed because it took me over half an hour to write.

 

I think I will try rewriting it when I get a chance.