I don't know that I'd phrase it so much as a free will thing.  In my view, being influenced by someone, or even doing exactly what they tell you to do, isn't really a loss of free will, but a use of it.

That said, I think the overall question is a good one.  My point of view is that everything we say and do influences those around us to one degree or another.  Sometimes its easy to predict how it will influence or affect someone, other times its nearly impossible to predict.  Because we're all being influenced by everyone else around us, it's very difficult to link any given action directly to someone else's influence.  Often, though, we can talk about increased/decreased chances of someone doing X, Y, or Z because of how we act or talk.

I should make clear that bearing responsibility for influencing someone doesn't take away any of their responsibility for their own actions.  When we get into these kinds of discussions, people often say "no one is responsible for anyone else's actions!  If you blame someone else, you're letting the guilty person off the hook!"  I disagree, though.  Person A can be fully responsible for their actions, while at the same time person B is responsible for their own actions, which can include actions which influence person A's actions.  The example I like to use is sitting in the pub with your friend.  He's obviously very, very drunk, and shouldn't be driving, but he asks you for your keys so he can borrow your car for a quick drive back to his place to get something he's forgotten.  If you give him the keys, and he drives your car into a bus and kills a bunch of people, he's responsible for the bad decision.   He's the one that's killed people, and he bears that guilt in full.  You, however, are responsible for your own action of giving him your keys when you knew he shouldn't be driving.  You bear full responsibility for that decision, which also lead, indirectly, to the deaths.  Your guilt for that bad decision doesn't lessen the guilt of your friend, but likewise his guilt for driving drunk doesn't lessen your guilt for giving your keys to someone you knew shouldn't be driving.

It's similar, in my view, when it comes to words.  If your friend is really angry at his ex-girlfriend, and says "Man, sometimes I think i should just kill her!"  It's not really responsible to say "well, she'd certainly deserve it."  You're not telling him to do it, but your tacit approval, even if you didn't mean it as such, just might be the thing that tips him over that balance point and causes him to decide he actually should do it.  If he does, he's fully responsible for killing her, but you'd be responsible for your unwise choice of words.

For these kind of things, I suppose what one would be guilty of would be poor judgment or irresponsibility.  If you don't want X to happen, and a reasonable person thinks that saying or doing Y will increase the chances of X happening, but you say or do Y anyway, you aren't guilty of causing X, but you are guilty of poor judgment, which has led to you being a contributing factor.

Good points in general, although what I am thinking of is a little more- and less- direct than that. For example, if you have a congregation of people who hang on your every word and tell that group "Somebody should kill Mr. x" and one of them does, what you did wasn't actually giving an order, but the outcome is certainly a forseeable one. You might have no control over which one pulls the trigger, but given a large enough group of impressionable enough people it becomes a certainty that one of them will, even if you later assert that you didn't mean it that way.
Because if your friends is talking about killing his ex-girlfriend, you can hopefully assume he is a rational decider on such an issue. When you start dealing with people who have a one way relationship  with you- hanging on your word when you don't really know them, the relationship dynamic changes dramatically, and in my opinion the speaker's obligations and responsibility increase, whereas a lot of peopel seem to argue the opposite, based on the number of people who didn't act extreemly in reaction to the words.

In reply to silveroak (msg #2):

Let's get even more specific.  Recently, there's been several cases of suicide after bullying/cyber-bullying.  The bullies words and actions clearly pushed these kids to the point of suicide.  What responsibility does the bullies bear for their words and actions?

While I agree that they have some responsibility, I also have to doubt that one person alone can really drive another to suicide. Certainly they can be the last straw, or the worst of the lot, but it takes teh rejection of either a community or someone for whom the person commiting suicide had strong feelings to create that kind of reaction. One on one it doesn't mater how extreem your speach/text is you are just one opinion unless they have some reason to give that opinion extra weight.

Which really makes this 2 questions, both of which relate to the orriginal- when that speach is itself a form of community leadership (whether preaching on television or creating an air of conformity at high school, or leading a political cause, tec.) and the questons of how trust relate to this issue- presumedly the predicatably unstable triggerman (inspired by but not related to recent events) has also invested their trust in someone pretty heavilly if they are willing to kill other people based on the general statements of their chosen leader.

Since we seem to be focusing on culpability, three things come to mind when trying weigh that up:

1.  what happened?  The worse the actual outcome, the more guilt someone bears.

2.  What was the intent?  If the person was actively trying to get the bad outcome, that's worse than if they were trying for something else but ended up with the bad outcome.

3.  Were they reasonable?  Would a reasonable person be expect the outcome that came about, or was it a mostly unpredictable fluke?  Even if a person didn't intend for the bad result to happen, if most reasonable people would have expected it to be the likely result of their action, then the person is at least guilty of some manner of negligence or recklessness.

Using the examples brought up:  A bully that leads to suicide would do very badly in the first category (very bad result), probably pretty badly in the second (they may not have wanted the person to commit suicide, but they clearly didn't have their best interest in mind), and moderately bad in the last (it's probably not what most people would expect, but they would expect some lesser bad outcome).

A charismatic leader who said "someone should kill X" might do very badly or not so badly in category 1 (depending on whether or not anyone actually did it), very badly in category 2 (they wanted the person killed), and probably very badly in category 3 (depending on just how devoted their followers were).

That seems to cover it, though it leaves 2 questions open:
1) What is the relative weigt of teh 3 categories
2) How do you judge intent where some degree of hostility is appropriate. For example lawyers in court, or political rivals on television? The fact is that a certain degree of conflict is inherant in our social structures...

Safety.  Civility.  Toned-down rhetoric.  Fairness.  Protecting the children.  Responsibility.  Intent.  These are the watch words for censorship.  It always starts with the smiling face that tells you it is for the "good of society".

We have laws for libel, defamation, slander, and conspiracy to commit murder.  What is being mused over in this thread is policing thought.  Who is to blame for placing a thought in another's head?  Who bears the responsibility for someone reacting to the words of another?  This is why we do not need hate-crime laws, speech codes, fairness doctrines, or any other kind of newspeak that covers up the real crime being committed: censorship.

It has been proven that such calls for "civility" can and will be used by the unscrupulous to silence the views they do not wish to hear or carry out political character assassinations.  Put the weight of law behind it and you have something very ugly indeed.

This is a very easy concept and doesn't require the normal intellectual masturbation.  The person committing the crime is to blame for the crime unless that person conspired with another to plan or finance said crime.  The court of public opinion is a different matter and the ususal idiots can make any connections they want.  They also possess the freedom to make unfounded connections no matter how they torture the facts.

Use sticks and stones and go to jail.  Use words and you are protected.  At least you used to be.

For what its worth, I was speaking of moral culpability, not legal.  If the others meant otherwise, I guess I misunderstood.  To be clear, I'm not suggesting government enforced censorship, but rather moral responsibility for one's own actions (and yes, our words are "actions" in this sense).  It may be legal for me to insult someone's mother, but I choose not to do it because I don't think it's a good thing to do.  And if I encourage other people not to do it either, I don't consider that to be censorship.

On the other hand, the crimes you list in your post indicate that words do matter.  If words had no predictable effect on anyone else, why would we have laws against libel?  I would say the fact that we have a law against libel shows that we 1) think words do have effects, 2) that we can have a reasonable guess at what kind of effect they will have in some situations, and 3) we can get an idea for what people's intent was when they say something.

Other evidence that we generally believe that words can have real-world consequences is that we bother to use them at all.  Why would we bother typing to one another if we believed it was completely unpredictable how the person would react to them?  If I honestly believed that you reading this was just as likely to make you go crazy and shoot someone as it was to make you more likely to agree with my point of view, I certainly wouldn't go to the effort of typing it out.  Further, if we believed that it didn't matter at all what people said about someone, we wouldn't bother defending them when people make false accusations against them.  Why bother defending Sarah Palin, say, if you don't think it matters that people say untrue things about her?

Words do matter.  We can't predict with certainty the effect that they'll have, but we can often make a decent guess.  Would there have been sufficient support for the american revolution without Patrick Henry?  I don't know.  Could the colonists have won that war without Washington's speech to rally his troops when morale was about to break?  I doubt it.  Would we bother teaching school kids the gettysburg address, or the I have a dream speech, if those words didn't lead to any kind of change?

Holding people morally accountable for the things they say isn't censorship.  In many cases, holding them legally accountable isn't exactly censorship either (I don't consider libel to be censorship, for example), though I agree that it can be used as such by the unscrupulous.

Some people would like it to be true that their words could never be held against them.  It could be some sort of perverse version of the nurenburg defense:  "I was just giving orders!  How was I to know how they would act?!  I never pulled the trigger myself!"  But that's passing the buck, and avoiding responsibility for ones own actions.  Just as we have to take responsibility for our actions, we need to take responsibility for our words.  And just like with actions, sometimes there are consequences we didn't intend, and didn't foresee, and that reduces culpability to a degree.  However, just like with actions, if you should have foreseen a consequence, even if you didn't intend it, there's a level of responsibility there too.  Saying "I didn't really guess that's what people would do when I shouted FIRE! in a crowded theater" doesn't work for me any more than does "I didn't really guess that drinking a bottle of jack before driving home would really end up this way."

To put it another way, it's less an issue of saying "you can't ever say X" and more an issue of saying "you're responsible for the consequences of you saying X."  I don't really see much reason not to hold people responsible for their the predictable or intended effects of their words.

Tlaloc called this "thought crime," but I disagree.  Thoughts alone don't affect people.  Speaking your thoughts, or acting on your thoughts, can, however.  Treating the level of guilt (whether moral or legal) differently based on intent isn't anything crazy or out there.  Our legal system does it all the time (that's why we have multiple "degrees" of murder and also manslaughter, and also things like "attempted murder").  We can't ever get inside someone's head and know for certain what they were intending to happen, but we can frequently form a pretty good guess.

In reply to Tycho (msg #8):

Your holding someone "morally accountable" falls into the court of public opinion of which I wrote.  You have every right to hold someone accountable.  How much good that will do is another matter.

Speaking, spreading or printing lies affects a person's life and ability to make financial gains.  That is why slander and libel laws were created.  We have them and we don't need laws based on vague concepts of civility.



Direct orders from governmental officials to kill someone outside of national security is already outlawed.  Bad example.  It falls under the conspiracy to commit murder that is already on the books.



You have every right to say whatever you wish regarding someone's words.  It would be nice, however, if you could actually link those words to the action.  You may not be talking about censorship or laws but your reasoning is often used towards that very end.



Yet we can convict, in a court of law or the court of public opinion, based on your "pretty good guess"?  How comforting.  The levels of murder are based on actions.  Did you try to kill or was it unintentional (use drunk-driving here)?  Did you hire someone?  Did you succeed?  Did you plan it out?

What you are talking about is discerning what someone was thinking when they spoke in order to bring about someone else's actions.  And that is far harder to prove.  But hey, a guess is good enough because it would never be influenced by political leanings, personal prejudices, or public perceptions.

This does constitute the concept of a thought crime.  Perhaps you would like to detail how you would "hold someone responsible"?  You say it often but you don't seem to work out the details for us.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.


Like I said, I wasn't suggesting that we do.  The point of mentioning libel is to illustrate the fact that words do, in fact, have consequences.  They can "[affect] a person's life and ability to make financial gains."  That's not a "vague concept of civility," it's real, actual, honest-to-goodness real world effects.  They can have even worse effects too, in some cases.  Libel is a legal example of the moral issue I'm discussing: holding people responsible for the effects of the words they speak.


Like I said, I'm not suggesting it because I want new laws.  I'm mentioning it to show that it's already established, legally as well as morally, that people can be held accountable for their words as well as their actions.

[emphasis added]
An interesting point, no?  You're hinting that I shouldn't be saying this, because other people will use it as an excuse to impose censorship.  Perhaps you don't disagree with my idea quite so much as you think? ;)


Sometimes we do.  Can we ever know, for certain, if someone who shot at someone and missed really intended to kill them?  We convict people of "attempted murder," but how can we know with certainty that was their intent?  Unfortunately we can't.  We have to make do with weighing up the evidence, and reaching a reasonable conclusion.  And sometimes, unfortunately, we get it wrong.  Which is why we have, in theory, a system that should error towards letting guilty go free rather than convicting the innocent.  It's not perfect, not by a long shot, but it's not anything particularly radical in the sense of trying to understand motives, intents, and the like.

[emphasis added]
Seems like we're more on the same page here than you realize.  You're talking about the exact kinds of things I am, but for some reason see them as different.  Was it "unintentional?"  That's my category 2 in the post above.  Likewise, evidence of planning would give us a very good clue as to intent.


Yes, definitely harder to prove.


Yes, it can be influenced by all those things, unfortunately.  Just as it can be when trying to determine someone's intent (or lack thereof) in a murder trial.  It's a difficultly, to be certain, but that's not unique to 'crimes' (whether legal or moral) involving only speech.

Also, there's a difference between whether someone is guilty, and whether we can prove that they're guilty.  I was more talking about the former, you seem to be focusing on the later.  Both important topics, but they shouldn't be confused, or thought of as exactly the same thing.


I'm using it in the sense of "do I consider them guilty of having bad intentions, or of showing poor judgment, which led to an unwanted result?"  Its more or less the same thing I'd do when considering unwanted results due to actions rather than words.  Does the evidence point to it being an intentional act, or an accident?  If an accident, did they act carelessly or recklessly?

Again, I don't think it's anything radical.  The quickest way to put it, really, is to just realize that speaking is an action, so that "you're responsible for your actions" includes what you say.

You absolutely can say what you think.  I am saying that your reasoning is the very reasoning used by those who are demanding censorship.  That a person's words can be linked to another's actions even if no direct link can be found.



And what else are we to judge a person by?  A little thing called evidence.  Do you have witnesses to the death?  Do you have other evidence: life policies taken out the day before, cheating, history of violence, calls to hitmen, etc.  Intent is judged by actions.  At least it is supposed to be.



I am all for self-moderation and wished a great many practiced it more often.  My concern stems from the particular language being used here.  If you say you are not for censorship, speech codes, or fairness acts then we agree.

Think about this: Should you be held responsible for those that use your very arguments to create those things?  After all, you are the moderator and you are influencing the conversation.  Who knows how the more "eratic" members of this forum might react?
This message was last edited by the player at 20:39, Tue 18 Jan 2011.

No real disagreement there, though I would include what a person says as part of their actions.  But again, you seem to be talking about how do we prove guilt, while I'm looking at the more abstract question of what makes someone guilty.  Please don't take the fact that I'm talking about something slightly different to mean that I disagree with what you're saying.  I agree that we need to look at evidence to prove what their intent was, I'm just more interested (in this conversation at least) with the fact that intent matters.


I think it goes back to my post a few back.  It depends on what actually happens (does someone reading this actually end up managing to implement a censorship law?), what my intent was (I don't want censorship laws, as I've stated a few times now), and whether a reasonable person would expect that my saying that people are accountable for the words they say would lead to someone implementing a new censorship law.  To be honest, I'm not particularly worried about any of the members of this forum, erratic or otherwise, being able to pass a censorship law.  If there were someone here who I knew was a politician, though, and who had shown a habit of quoting or paraphrasing my arguments in bills they wrote, I'd be much more careful about what I typed (though, having stated that I think censorship laws are bad ideas a few times now, hopefully that'd be care enough).

And this is what gets me in this whole thread.  Why should you have to watch what you say because a politician is quoting you or even listening to you?  Even if you said you were for censorship laws, why should you have to watch what you say because of this politician?

I understand if you did this out of personal concern but why would you be held personally responsible for that tool's actions?  Who in their right mind would hold you accountable?  That is the point I am making.  Holding someone accountable for another's actions is a form of intimidation whether done by opinion or done by law.  In a free society you should be able to throw ideas around willy-nilly without having the actions of crazy people attributed to you.  Period.

So, let me get this straight.  In a free society, you can throw around lies, demean and hurt people with words, and badger them to the point of suicide?  All without repercussions?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.  As the old standard goes, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  That could cause harm, and no freedom includes the right to harm someone who isn't trying to harm you.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg #14):

Apparently you missed the whole slander, libel, and defamation laws that were discussed.

I didn't.  You, apparently, did when you threw this:


If your idea is that it's fun to verbally torment someone, that idea needs to change.  If they commit suicide, that is attributable to you and you are responsible.  Maybe not solely responsible, but it lies on your shoulders nonetheless.  After all, being suicidal is by definition crazy-- and it's still attributable to you.

Let me start by saying this: jumping to questions of censorship from where this thread started isn't a slippery slope, it's a slippery cliff. Nobody was discussing any laws until Tlaloc brought them up, and the question was one of moral and personal responsibility, which is an appropriate question for social and cultural discussion.
And the fact is that there are more forms of authority than government. For example, when the owners of Fox news told all their pundits last week to "shut up and tone it down" in response to social dialogue after the shootings, they 'censored' their own broadcast with completely non-governmental influnce. I am sure that Palin and Beck aren't saying "well to heck with those directions, I won't end up in jail" and I doubt anyone who even remotely agrees with tehir point of view believes that is an inappropriate use of power for the netowrk to curtail their speach.
Similarly Palin and beck have their own 'aura' of power that comes from position and celebrity- simply being in a 'news' role on a national network lends a certain degree of authority. And people tend to respond to authority, even in drastically inappropriate ways.
Which comes down to teh real point of the thread- the responsbile use of social authority and personal responsibility in the realms of civil discourse.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg #16):

Sometimes it is fun to verbally torment those who, in your opinion, deserve it.  Is it not fun to torment Palin and her children?  How about Bush and his daughters?  How about Cheney and his lesbian daughter?  No end of fun and hilarity along those lines.

And still, that is protected speech.  I don't agree with it at all and I don't condone it.  Suicide is a personal thing and "pushing" someone to it is very hard to prove since they most likely would find a reason for it anyway.  What you see as torment is merely criticism, or humor, to another.

So attribute it to whomever you wish.  If the person feels they are responsible that is their deal.  You being the judge and jury is quite another.

In reply to silveroak (msg #17):

Your views and ideology are quite apparent and reason and fact do not seem to determine how you apply your mystical "responsibility".  Beck has not caused a single life to be lost.  Palin has not caused a single life to be lost.  You are merely searching for some way to explain your initial rush to judgement.  Good luck.

Yes, my views and ideology are apparent, I would say transparent. However this is not a "search for a way to explain my rush to judgement" I will do that in the appropriate thread and in fact have done so (I mentioned there the public officials statement being in teh category of false evidence)

What this si is an attempt to discuss the larger issue that underlies the dialogue of that situation- how much responsibility does someone have in that situation, regardless of political position or motive, in a hypothetical sense, for the consequences of their words impacting the behavior of another.

I am not the one rushing to judgement here, and I do not believe your aspersions of villanous intent are justified in this thread or the other.

To put this in terms that affect the other side of the argument Tlaloc- do you feel that the Sherrif has a moral responsibility for his speach in a position of authority that when he is investigating attempted murder/assasination of a Democratic US Senator not to make baseless comments about the possible responsibility of talk television hosts?
Like I said, the issue of free speach and responsibility does not inherantly take political sides, though it can be framed in political terms.

In reply to silveroak (msg #20):

Villianous?  No.  Other adjectives apply though.

So if we are discussing "personal responsibility" and "moral responsibility" for the actions others take based on the words of another then I was correct with the assumption that this is an intellectual exercise with no real world application.

There is no moral court, outside of God if you are so inclined, and there is no method of enforcing what a person should feel.  I assumed that responsibility meant something that could be enforced in some manner.  Thank you for clarifying silveroak and sorry for hijacking the thread.

The Sheriff had an official responsibility to perform an investigation without making baseless allegations, accusations, and assumptions based on his politics.  Some in Arizona believe that he has compromised the case against the shooter and that he should be removed from office.  He does not have the right of free speech in regards to what he says about the case in a official capacity and even what he says unofficially.  His duty is to see that the investigation is done in a professional manner and clearly his words have shown a lack of capacity to do so.

So no, the Sheriff is not a good example of free speech and the responsibilities of free speech.  It is an example of dereliction of duty and not the first for this particular law enforcement official.

Responsibility, depedning on your philosophy, has nuerous forms of 'enforcement' ranging from God to social pressures to the internal workings fo one's own concience. But certainly this is not an issue of a court of law.

And now I'm hijacking my own thread :P

But I do think teh dialogue and point-counterpoint do raise another aspect of this issue, which is when people with 'assigned authority' speak out of turn. It is one thing to talk about talking heads and religious and political leaders, even bullies whose social authurity that gives weight to their words is in some ways communally bestowed, where their own charisma or atributes have given them a following such that their words carry weight, but that is not teh only case which can be open for discussion. When a police officer implies additional suspects of a differing type, or when a judge suggests that certain rulings might go a certain way in teh future, these things as well can have social impact which should be predicatble with potentially hazardous consequences. An angry mob beating down innocent people who match teh description of a 'suspect' in an inflamatory crime, or if a judge were to make a public statement about only citizens having full rights- two completely hypothetical examples, but they do illustrate the point.

Authrity, whether by social accolade, academic achievement or governmental imbuement, carry weights and responsibilities.
Of course to touch back to teh orriginal point I would argue the third category (governemnt grabted authority) should carry some degree of legal restriction. that is just a matter of the government being responsible with it's own power.

Because that's what being a responsible person involves.  If you expect an action you take to lead to an undesirable consequence, you shouldn't do it.  Doesn't really matter if the action is speaking, or "doing something."  If A leads to B, and you don't want B to happen, then don't do A.  Fairly straight forward.

Granted, there are times when you have choose between lesser evils.  Maybe by not saying X you avoid problem Y, but at the same time, you don't get your message out, which is also an unwanted consequence.  A responsible person has to weigh up the expected outcomes, and make as informed a decision as they can.


I wouldn't (or at least that's not what I'm suggesting).  He'd be responsible for HIS actions, and I'd be responsible for MINE.  If I expected MY actions to lead to him doing something unpleasant, but I went ahead and did it anyway, then I've made a choice and have to accept the consequences of it.


Again, it's not holding you responsible for someone else's actions.  It's holding you responsible for YOUR actions.  For YOUR decisions.  The fact that there is an intermediary between your action and the final, predictable result doesn't remove your guilt anymore than using a gun to kill someone removes your guilt because it was technically the bullet that killed them, not you.  If your action leads, in a predictable way, to a certain outcome, then you bear responsibility for taking an action that lead to that outcome.


Why?  Should we be able to drive around drunk and "willy-nilly" without having to worry about crazy people trying to use the road too and getting in your way?  Should we be able to shoot guns at random in city streets without having to worry about the consequences?  If actions have predictable, undesirable consequences you need to have a really good reason to commit them.  "I should be able to do whatever I want without worry about anyone else!" isn't a really good reason.

I think libel laws are a good way to see what I'm talking about here.  If we should really be able to say whatever we like, "willy-nilly" without worrying about what other people will do, then we shouldn't have libel laws.  But we do, and in my view, we should, because as you pointed out, there are predictable negative consequences involved with spreading falsehoods about people.  If you can understand why libel laws are useful, you should be able to see what I'm talking about.  The negative effects of libel come about because other people react to what you say, and treat the person you write about differently.  They all have free will, and you're not forcing them to do anything, but the effects of lying about someone can be very real, and very significant.

And because this caught my eye, I'll comment on it as well:

I think you're stuck on the "proof" aspect of things, rather than the guilt aspect of things.  I think we can all agree that often it's very hard or impossible to prove that someone caused something to happen, but that's not really what the rest of us our talking about, though.  It's often impossible to prove that someone shot someone else, but that doesn't mean the shooter was guilty of murder.  It just means we haven't been able to prove who did it.  In the case of suicide, if the person who committed suicide really was pushed over the edge by someone, that person really does bear some guilt, even if the rest of us will never know for sure if they do or don't.  Getting away with a crime isn't the same as being innocent of it ("crime" here in the loose sense, which includes not just legal infractions).
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:24, Thu 20 Jan 2011.

But guilt, by that same token, is self-determined. I may not push my brother toward drug use, but I may feel that my lack of attentiveness pushed him toward it... I'd be full of guilt even though I wasn't culpable. Those people who supplied him with the drugs, helped him sort out the paraphernalia, and used it with him, would feel no such guilt.

guilt comes from a lot of places- yourself, the courts can find you guilty, guilty in the eyes of other people... each with different consequences and signifigance.

We should have the right, even the responsibility, to voice our thoughts without a legal prohibition to doing so. The police may not come to me and prevent me from printing thoughts, nor should they have the right to take away my computer because of my intent to post something in direct opposition to their opinion of politics (as an example). The free exchange of thoughts is central to our (USA) government. It is a shame that people don't exercise it as often as they should.

That being said, the consequences of said speech should be felt by those who exercise it. The government has no right nor obligation to see to it that friendly relationships are kept, policing behaviour of neighbors, and generally micromanaging the populace in order to maintain the status quo after you drop a figurative bombshell.

If you want your laws to state that, after the fact, Bob should be tried for assisting in the suicide of Jane, go for it.

Don't start saying that Bob had no right to say it in the first place. ;)

I don't think anyone is saying that, at least not here. Sure tehre are those in the media who want to make a case out of 'cyberbullying' and even some prosecutors who feel teh same way. I think that there are legitimate limitations to speach with regards to a) slander/libel and b)harrasment. If i call your house every 30 minutes for three days to tell you what a dirty awfull subhuman person you are there is more going on there than simply me expressing my opinion of you.
Now my post regarding gult is simply to mean what it says- tehre are many types of guilt, and if you were to buy time on public access television and start talking about Hitler being right (chosen as an extreem hypothetical) and that jews need killing and someone who watches your show went out and started killing Jews, then even if the law found you were not to blame (because your lawyer gave you good advice about how to phrase things so you would not be legally guilty in this kind of case before your broadcast began) and you may not individually feel guilty, there is still a matter of you being guilty in public opinion. the results of which may be having to endure some free speach or rights of free assosciation directed towards yourself. Probably including the cable network refusing to renew your contract.

In reply to TheMonk (msg #28):

How far are you willing to go with that generalization?  Do you feel child pornography should be legal?  What about revealing personal information about people, along with inflametory claims about them (such as "So and So lives and XXX blahdittyblah St., drives a red ford, leaves for work at 8am monday through friday, is a (insert local scapegoat group here, be it republicans, democrats, muslims, gays, abortion providers, mormons, whatever), and no one would really miss him if someone put a bomb in his house")?  What about threats of violence in retaliation for legal actions (such as "if I hear of anyone in this town voting for So and So, I'm gonna shoot them!")?  What about threats for the purpose of getting money ("if there's not a suitcase full of $100 bills on my front porch tomorrow morning, I'm going to start shooting school kids!")?  What about plain old extortion ("Nice place ya got here...be a pity if somebody burned it down.")?

All of these things could be argued to be "exchanging ideas."  Do you really feel there should be no legal consequence for any of them at all?

The idea of only prosecuting based on effects is good in someways, but it is bad in another in that it leaves us unable to react to predictable situations.  Do we really need to wait for someone to actually shoot a school kid to actually do anything, or should we just take them at their word if they say they're going to do it?  Also, in the case of threats, the person may be hoping that they won't have to back it up.  If someone decides to leave the suitcase full of money on the persons doorstep, and thus no one gets shot, does that really mean that no wrong has been committed?

To take the discussion in a slightly different direction:  is freedom of speech an end unto itself, or is it a means to an end?  Meaning, do we have freedom of speech because we think that any government interference in speech is a bad thing, full stop, OR do we have it because we think the benefit of free speech outweighs the cost?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on that question.  I do think that generally the benefit does outweigh the cost, so its somewhat moot, but in the rare cases where I don't see any real benefit to it, it's a hard call for me.  Should hate speech be protected (setting aside the very tricky question of who gets to decide what constitutes hate speech for the moment)?  Does it provide any real benefit?  If so, does that benefit outweigh the cost?  I'm not sure.

Is an instruction book on how to get away with kidnapping and raping small children providing sufficient benefit to justify its protection?  I wouldn't think so.  But at the same time, I have a gut-level reaction against censorship of things just because we don't like the content.  Without using any slippery slope arguments, or "who's to be the judge" arguments or "well if we ban X, then we'd have to ban Y, and then Z" arguments, can anyone really make a case for why such a book should be protected speech?  I'm not saying the arguments aren't justified, but rather that they dwell on practical implementation issues.  If we lived in a world where we didn't have to worry who got to be the judge, and there were no knock-on effects of banning one book, etc., would we still want to protect that speech?


EDIT:  Thought about this a bit more, and thought a better way to put it might be this:  Do we protect "a guide to raping children and getting away with it" because it's worth protecting in its own right, or only because not protecting it would lead to other things being censored as well?
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:26, Fri 21 Jan 2011.

The thing about 'a guide to raping children and getting away with it' is that it is a topic where those are planning, or even considering, doing such a thing already have much more consideration and knowledge on the topic than the general public. wheras the guide could prove very usefull to parents and police in preventing someone from raping children and getting away with it...

The benefit certainly outweighs the cost.  Just like Beck said, "I wanna know what people are really thinking."   I wanna know who thinks and says what because it allows me for understand who they are.  It allows us to know who to associate with.  It allows us to know who to stay away from.  I believe we should only have laws that deal with people physically or financially harming someone else.   People who dry beg people into killing someone else, well that's a different story, as long as they don't participate in the planning, pay for the murder, or help carry out the kill should be clear.  A wife who tells her boyfriend, "we can't be together anymore because my husband might find out" even knowing that that statement will cause the boyfriend to murder the husband shouldn't be held accountable for the boyfriend who knew the actions they were about to commit were wrong.

If there was a guide like that, which I believe there actually is which the government and one major division of a religion study daily, than I would have to place it under the physically harming catagory and say it should be illegal.

Should the book guide instead be called A Guide to Preventing the Rape of Children and Signs of it's Occurance. than I'm all for having that book availible to the public.

From a perspective though, producing a guide to protecting children means you are going to be advocating certain steps to take more than understanding the mind of a rapist. I admit the hypothetical title "how to rape children and get away with it" would certainly be inflamatory, at least without the addition of something like "Know the enemy: how to rape children and get away with it, inside the minds of serial rapists". But in terms of the text itself I think a 'guide' that explains teh steps a competant rapist would use in raping children and assuring tehy remain free is of more use than a guide to prevention because it allows everyone to formulate tehir own defense to a known problem rather than creating a known defense that rapists can study and exploit and determine new ways to circumvent.

Also if you look earlier in this thread, this isn't just about laws, but personal responsibility. Even if you believe it should be legal for a woman to suggest to her lover with a hair trigger that her husband's potential actions are what is keeping them apart with full knowledge that her lover will then kill her husband, would you consider that the personally responsible thing to do?

In reply to silveroak (msg #34):

Maybe under your title the book would advocate understanding the mind of a rapist. In mine no understanding of a rapists mind would be needed to tell parents to keep an eye on their children in public or if you see a panel van sitting by a school bus stop call police.  Finding similar tendencies from past cases of child rape is all it requires.  If anything it's simply understanding the mind.  It's common sense.  They call them predators for a reason.  In the wild predators find the weak/young as targets.  It's unnecessary to go through the rapists mind to find out why they are the way they are to simply tell parents don't allow your children to play alone on a playground or walk across town by themselves.

Let's use a real book, The Anarchist Cookbook, should a book that teaches how to make bombs be on the shelves of your library?

If everyone was personally responsible then there wouldn't be a need for this thread.

I wasn't aware this thread was necessary, or that it actually accomplished anything such that it in any way modifies people being irresponsible. So far we are just discussing what responsibility *means* in this context, so the allegation is that if people were responsible we wouldn't have to define what it means to be responsible? It seems to me it would become an even bigger topic of conversation since people would feel it was an important topic to improve their own performance in that area.
It is people who worry more about their rights than their responsibilities than seem to be where the problems orriginate.

Pretty far, although at some point it'll be tongue in cheek.



I don't feel that either one of those actually present ideas valuable to the public discourse... nor any other sort of idea, really. If a man stands around and says, "I find children sexually arousing," then alright. He's added to the public discourse. That same man could say, "you should butt-rape children," and he has still added to the public discourse. Were he to go into graphic detail then he has almost assuredly stepped beyond the boundaries of public discourse and is, at best, pandering to prurient interests. Revealing SSNs, Phone Numbers, what someone had for dinner last night (unless it ties to another issue, such as veganism or cannibalism) doesn't reveal anything either.



I'd be completely alright with all of this, even if it was directed at me.



I'm afraid I have to resort to Oliver Holmes, who said something to the effect that every civilized nation, no matter how liberal, would have laws against shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. If a friend of mine, whom I knew was keen on making bombastic statements, said that he was going to shoot voters for a specific candidate, my friends and I might have a good laugh knowing that voters are generally protected from having specific votes announced. Such a statement should be reported if the listener takes it seriously but should not be an arrestable offense.

Wow... you know what. Having looked closer at all of the above statements I'm more determined than when I first read it to consider each one as non-criminal (although watching the potential shooter might be good for the local cops).



I don't think that each of them is, although the body of second quotes (the shooter, extortion) might. What about the man who, having had his own business destroyed by natural disaster, wanders into a local merchants and makes the same statement? Do we arrest him for it?



Well, yeah... but we don't arrest them for it. We watch them because they are more likely to commit a felony than someone who quietly bides their time until just the right moment to start shooting.



Does the person threatening accept the money? If he accepts the money than he has actually been bribed not to commit a criminal act... I think that's illegal (weird), but if he goes outside and screams "just kidding," and walks back inside without touching the case, I think the most you've got is, what, disturbing the peace? A civil offense, not a criminal one, and certainly not something that should go before the supreme court.

I disagree.  It's the influenceable mind that is responsible, should that mind be a childs than responsibility falls on parents.  I'm only responsible for myself and my family not my neighbors family.
It's the people who worry about other peoples responsibilities who are the problem.

I wasn't talking about that as a part of the comparison- in part because once again for the Nth time I am nt talking about lws or enforcement or making people do anything. I am talking about when I meet someone, or see someone on TV, who is very adamanent about their rights and how they are being infringed upon because they aren't allowed to do whatever they want without being criticized by some evil person trying to control them for nefarious purposes...
Then I know that person either suffers from paranoid delusions or is an irresponsible jerk.
Nothing about control or laws, or forcing people to take responsibility, that is simply what I will think of anyone who displays that behavior. It is my own judgement and as much my right to believe and say as much as it is your right to be that jerk, and rant and rave about fow your freedom is somehow constrained by other people's opinions.
And generally in real life (as opposed to internet debates) I tend to give these jerks a wide berth unless it looks like whatever venom they are spewing along with their paranoid delusions (because 85% of the time these people don't just blame the governemnt, they have someone who is controling the government to blame) is going to become an actual threat to the peace and safety of the community.
And even then we are not talking about law enforcement, we are talking about speaking up, deflating movements, and taking private action as a private citizen.
Because I am a private citizen, not a government, and have as much right to free speach and personal liberty as the irresponsible jerks who need to lay the blame for their failures at other people's feet.

One's actions leading to an undesirable consequence is one thing.  Censoring your words because others might do all manner of bad things based on your words is quite another.  Especially when those actions taken are things you would never do.  One feeling guilt about them is totally up to the person.



Or you spoke your words knowing that you have the full right to speak your mind as you wish to without having the actions of others attributed to you.  Mind you, I am not speaking of people whose official capacity is to give orders to others.  They are bound by the laws and codes of conduct that oversee such official relationships.  The speech I am protecting is the speech of an individual speaking their mind.



Really?  Shooting someone as an example?  Are the actions of others based on one person voicing their opinion so very predictable as shooting a gun?  You say predictable outcome, show me a real world example.



Why?  Because the Constitution protects your ability to do so.  Not to mention the whole concept of personal freedom and liberty that all people should possess.  Killing people and driving drunk are horrible examples since they are not free speech and are hardly the same thing.  But yes, you should be able to say whatever you wish, as a citizen and has nothing to do with good reasons or good judgement.  Others can, and do, base judgements on your words and that is their right.  Stop the over-the-top comparisons and actually deal with the concept of a person being responsible for the actions of others.



Already addressed.  Libel, slander, and defamation laws are in place because the words of others can materially affect another.  If I print in the NYT that Tycho eats puppies and slaps homeless children that makes you an outcast and unable to find work.  I would have to prove my words or pay the damage I have caused.



Once again, libel, slander, and defamation are different than free speech.  Voicing opinion and thought is quite different from those concepts.



If I don't feel I have caused something then I certainly don't feel guilty for it.  If you can't prove it then I am of the mind to tell you to peddle your guilt elsewhere.  There is no nobility in feeling guilty for things that you had no hand in.

You, on the other hand, are quite able to feel guilt for things loosely attributed to you.  Once again, you have the complete right to do so.  If we are talking the mere feeling of guilt and self-censorship then I believe we are in agreement that you have the right to do so.  What we disagree on is that I have the moral imperative to censor myself and feel guilt when someone does something stupid based on my opinions.



So a person who shoots someone is comparable to someone "pushing" another to commit suicide?  Not in my book since a shooting is often pretty easy to prove.  Murder and suicide are quite different.  I believe I keep my original point about relying on facts and proof to determine guilt.  Especially my own.

[emphasis added]
While I agree the boyfriend is responsible for his own actions, I also think the wife is responsible for hers.  If she knew (or even just believed), that her saying that would lead to someone getting killed, and chose to say it anyway, she made a conscious, intentional decision that her husbands life was worth less than her speaking her mind.  Taking responsibility for our actions includes the action of speech, in my view.  The fact that there's an intermediary between action and consequence doesn't matter much if the consequence is easily predictable.


Are the two mutually exclusive?  Can't both people be responsible for their own actions?  Rather than one being responsible for their actions, and the other having no responsibility for their own?


Agreed...but why?  Do you have a magical power over your children that you hold over no one else?  No.  You might have legal power over them, but adults can be influenced just like children can, or like the children of other people can (though your own kids may be more willing to accept your views without question).  I'd say the reason your responsible for your kid listening to you is because they're so likely to listen to you do as you say (or imply).  If you have "followers" that are just as likely to follow your every word litterally and blindly as a child would, then I think you need to be just as careful with what you say to them as you do to your kids.


But you are responsible for how your actions affect your neighbor's family, though, yes?  You can't shoot at their house for fun and say "hey, I'm not responsible for their family!" when someone gets shot.  Your actions can, and do, affect more than just you and your family.  If you know that saying X is going to cause harm to someone else, and you still do it, you've made a decision to cause them harm.  Again, intermediataries between your action and the final consequence don't mean you have no responsibility not to harm others.


I'd say it's the people who don't worry about their own responsibilities that tend to be more of a problem.

Yes, it's the thing I'm talking about.


Yes, it's something I'm not talking about.


Feeling guilty about raping children is entirely up to the rapist as well, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't say they're wrong for doing it, or that they bear no responsibility for their action.



You're talking about legal rights, and I'm talking about moral reponsibility.  Not sure that we can really get far if you believe everything that's legal is morally right.  In the past it was legal for a husband to beat his wife, rape her, then beat her again.  Doesn't mean he didn't bear responsibility for that action, and it doesn't mean he was morally right to do it.


Depends on the gun, perhaps.  If you don't believe that your words have predictable effect on others, why do you bother using them?  If you believe that its not possible to predict the effects of words, why do you think libel should be a crime?  These are real questions, not just rhetorical ones.  Think about them, and let me know.


How about Osama bin Laden?  He didn't hijack a plane, and he didn't crash it into any buildings.  He doesn't have any legal authority to tell people do so.  The people who tooks his advice and crashed plans into the twin towers did so of their own free will.  I think that Osama bin Laden bears a whole lot of responsibility for 9/11, even if his role was just "exchanging ideas" of how to do it, and that it should be done.

Another example?  Shirley Sherrod.  Whatever you happen to think about her, someone released a video clip that made her look racist, by leaving out the "...and then I realized I was wrong for doing that" part that was the whole point of her talk, and she lost her job over it.  The person who first sent that to some blogger knew what they were doing, and were trying to discredit her, and trying to cause her problems.  They didn't say anything false, so it wasn't technically libel, and it wasn't illegal.  But I'd say they bear some responsibility for her losing her job, and I don't think what they did was morally right.


What you should do, and what the constitution allows you to do are not always the same thing.  Again, I think you're stuck on the legal aspect, which isn't what I'm talking about.


Yes, they're not the same thing.  Now tell me why.  Not just that they're different, but really, think about it, and tell me why they're different.


Except for libel, slander, intimidiation, conspiracy, etc., right?  Why do you allow these exceptions?  Again, that's not just a rhetorical question, think about it, and really answer it.  All of those are limits on your free speech.  All of them take away some of your right to freely exchange ideas.  But we both agree that it's justified.  I know why I think it's justified, but I have no idea why you do, since you seem to think that consequences of words should in no way limit what you should say, let alone what you should be allowed to say.


Let me state this again, since the first 10 or so times I've said it seems to have been missed.  I'm not talking about being responsible for the actions of others.  I'm talking about being responsible for your own actions, which include saying things.


Yes, that's true, but it doesn't answer the question of why any of that matters.  Why does it matter if libel material affects another?  As long as you don't do the affecting, hey, you're not responsible for the way other people treat the person, right?  Don't try to blame their actions on you, right?  You're just exercising your constitutional right to free expression, right?  No, in this case you don't seem to feel so.  But why.  Why does it matter if your words lead others to treat me differently in the case of libel, but not in any other case?  What makes libel different?  Why should you have to pay the damages that others have caused me if you're convicted of libel?  Why do you bear any blame for how others react to your words?  Again, these are real, honest questions.  Give them a bit of thought, rather than just repeating what you've already said.  When I asked what makes libel different, I'm not just asking you to tell me what libel is, I'm asking what's significantly different about it that it should be treated radically different than any other type of speech?  We both agree that if you libel me then your responsible for some of the harm that comes about, even if it's all caused entirely by people other than you.  I know why I think that's the case, but I don't know why you do, because it seems inconsistent with what you're saying here.  Its an exception to your "we should be able to say whatever we want and not be at all responsible for how other people react to it" view, but you haven't explained why it should be an exception.


I strongly disagree.  Those are very much free speech issues, or more to the point, lack of free speech issues.  They are cases where your free speech is restricted.  Why?  It's not because they're "quite different" from expressing opinion or thought (in fact, they are examples of doing that), but rather because they have very real, and reasonably expected negative effects on people.


If you don't feel you caused it, then probably its not an issue.  If, on the other hand, you thought "I know that if I say this, someone's gonna do something stupid," and went ahead and said it anyway, I'd say you should feel you've caused it.  Whether anyone else can prove you thought that isn't really the issue.  You can tell me to "peddle guilt elsewhere" if I can't prove you killed someone, but if you really did kill them, you bear guilt, even if you don't feel it.  You say there's no nobility for feeling guilty for things you had no hand it, and I'm saying that there's no nobility in not feeling guilt for things you DID have a hand in.


Not something "stupid," but something predictable.  If they were completely crazy, and you had no idea they would react that way, then sure, not much guilt there.  But if you expected them to react that way, even if its a "stupid" way to react, and went ahead and made it happen, then yes, you do bear responsibility for that decision.


Not always.  People get shot all the time without anyone being able to prove who did it.  But again, I'm not talking about legal issues here, but more ones.  Like I said before, not getting caught isn't the same as being innocent.


I'd agree we should rely on facts to determine legal guilt.  But if you're using "did they find be legally guilty" as your metric to guide your moral decisions, I think that's a somewhat immoral world view.  I'll say it again: not getting caught doesn't make you innocent.  You know your own motives, even if I don't.  If you use the fact that I don't know your motives to justify your actions, I think that's self-deception.  Thinking "I think I can get this guy killed, and no one will be able to prove that was my goal!" isn't what I would consider morally right.  I'm guessing you wouldn't either, but that seems to be what you keep defending.

I found this interesting:



Being a parent of three children I would say that yes, a parent DOES have a magical power over their children.  They have the power of money, access to media, and the power over who that child associates with and where they go.  Those parents who actually engage in parenting know this and use it to instruct their children in the harsh ways of the world.

True that as they get older some will find ways to lie and cheat their way around your rules but ultimately comparing children to adults is useless in this argument unless said adults have a proven mental deficiency.

Raping children is against the law so I don't really care what the rapist feels.  Once again your examples do not fit the topic.



I am actually talking about the moral right to speak your mind without having the actions of another attributed to your words.  Pretty simple concept.  The whole morality issue is between that person and their conscience.  What other people think shouldn't factor into it.  It does on the level of those people having the right to judge your words but the morality of it is yours and yours alone.

I do like the continued use of all these other atrocities to make what you believe to be a point.



This makes no sense.  Libel has to be proven.  As in providing proof that someone's words has materially affected your life.



Wow.  Simply wow.

OBL funded the attack, created the plan, trained the hijackers, and coordinated their movements.  That is what is called conspiracy or funding terrorism which is against the law in most countries.

Having jumped the shark on this one I believe I will bow out.  Have an excellent day!

I'm not talking about what the rapist feels, or what's against the law.  I'm talking about what's right or wrong.  If that doesn't fit your topic, I apologize, but it's entirely in keeping with the point I'm making.


Except you've given examples of exceptions to this moral right yourself (libel, slander, etc.), but haven't explained why it should be different.  If you would, that would probably go a long way in helping you understand what I'm saying.  Right now you seem to be making up what you think I believe, and arguing against that, even when I say multiple times that I'm not endorsing the point you're arguing against.


Is that the same for rape?  Is the whole morality just between the rapist and their conscious?  I'm pretty sure you don't think that's the case.  You seem to want to dismiss this as a topic not worth discussing, but you're not making any case for it, you're just stating your belief without support.


Okay, why does proof affect the morality of it?  If I can't prove you committed a murder, does that make you morally innocent of it?  You might have missed it when I said it, oh, three or four times, but getting away with it doesn't make you innocent.

Really, please have an honest think about the question I'm asking.  Why is libel an exception to your "anything goes" position?  It seems to be exactly what I'm talking about: your words leading to other people treating someone else differently, and you being held responsible for it.  That seems to be an open-and-shut counter example to your belief that we should be able to say whatever we like, and have no responsibility for how anyone else reacts to it.  I think if you give it a bit thought, rather than just looking to argue with me and try to insult, we'll both find the discussion much more fruitful.


Yes, it's against the law.  But is the exchange of ideas.  That's the point.  It's an example of someone just using the exchange of ideas to bring about an atrocity in a predictable way.  We both agree it's wrong.  We both agree its a crime.  We both agree, I should think, that the fact that other people actually carried out the hijacking and crashing the planes doesn't mean OBL bears no responsibility.  What we don't seem to agree on, is why its an exception to your "we can say whatever we want!" view.  Tell me why it was wrong for OBL to do what he did.  Not why it was illegal, but why it was morally wrong.  I'm guessing you'll say it's wrong because it lead to thousands of people dying, which was 1) a horrible atrocity, 2) the intended result, and 3) more or less what he expected to happen.  If you agree with those being the reasons its wrong, then you've agree with the methodology I laid out very early in this thread.

Like I said before, we'll both find this more useful and fruitful if you actually respond to what I'm saying, rather than making up a position for me.  I think you'll also get more out of it if you answer the questions I ask, too.  If I'm as obviously wrong as you seem to feel I am, it should be easy to answer my questions and show it.

People keep saying that they aren't talking about laws but morality and responsibility.  They then go about talking about morality with examples that are clearly against the law.

We all KNOW that rape is morally wrong as well as illegal.  How does that fit into the concept of being responsible for actions taken on someone else's words?



I have explained, multiple times, that libel and slander harm a person materially in a manner that can be proven.  That is a far cry from saying, "Here is my opinion." and having some idiot shoot the person you were talking about when that wasn't your intent.



I dismiss bogus arguments easily.  We are not talking about rape.  We are talking about words and freely speaking your mind.  About the morality of holding someone, even yourself, accountable for the actions of another.

Create a new thread about the morality of rape.  I certainly won't be there but it certainly doesn't belong in this one.



So proof of wrong doing doesn't play into your concept of morality?  You just feel guilty for all the bad things in the world or just the ones you have control over?  How do you determine which ones you had control over?  Could it be FACTS?  Could it be PROOF?

I didn't miss your point I just didn't acknowledge it because it isn't a part of this conversation.  Killing another person is sometimes a very moral thing to do depending on the circumstances.  If I shoot a rapist who is performing his crime I would pat myself on the back.  If I was defending my family I would feel like I upheld my moral duty to protect the ones I love.

If you commit murder and are not charged you are still a murderer.  That is a fact.  Just because you are not caught doesn't change that.  Now explain how this pertains to the concept of one's words being associated with the actions of another.  Or just come up with another rape scenario or murder analogy.  Your choice.



Fully explained above.



Funny.  I was thinking the same thing.  Just because you really like your argument does not mean I have to agree with it.

This is another interesting tactic though.  You believe that because I don't agree with your point, which is all over the place, that I am just not "thinking it through" and am just "looking to argue and insult".  Truly if I was fair and just I would readily agree with you.



And money.  And material support.  And an actual exchange of plans and tactics for committing murder on a huge scale.



Once again, wow.  You have reduced the training of hijackers, the funding of the plot, and the extensive planning of a terrorist act to be the equivalent of an exchange of ideas.

I do not agree with that at all and question your ability to say this falls into the intent of this thread.

But yes, we CAN say whatever we want.  What we cannot do is fund terrorism, materially support terrorists, and assist terrorists with their plots.  Sounds crazy I know.



It wasn't just words as I show above.  If OBL said that all infidels should die in a mosque in Cairo then he would be one of thousands of Muslims who say such things.  But he went a step further and funded, planned, and trained terrorists to actually kill people.

Big difference between the two and one you seem intent on ignoring.



I have done nothing but respond to the words you type.  I think you would get more out of this if you admitted that your examples are not on topic and bear no resemblance to the reality of free speech in regards to moral accountability for another's actions.

If you wish to debate the morality of rape, murder, or terrorism then fine, make a thread for it.  This thread seemed to be about the responsibility one has for the actions of another.

I am of the mind that we are free to speak our minds in a way each of us wishes without being unfairly held responsible for the actions that others take.  I don't know how more clearly I can make it for you.

So if I believe your words influenced someone else's actions I do not have the freedom to express that opinion?

The law handles the most extreem cases, which is why it is being used as a point of reference. But in the same way that it is illegal to beat someone up is comeprable to other acts of coercian which may be technically legal slander/libel is comperable to other forms of speach which may be technically legal. Saying "So and so is a terrorist" would be clear slander while saying "So and so is an extreemist muslim funding a mosque in the shaddow of the twin towers" simply implies a link to terrorism. The same way saying "someone could get hurt" isn't technically a threat of violence, even when it will probably be understood to be such.

and the other aspect isn't simply when a result is completely predictable, but also what is *probable*, and whether that is a cumultive effect. If every time you say "Mr.X is like Hitler" it multiplies the odds they will not be attacked by .99 then how many times can you responsibly say it? (hypothetical result just to through a theoretical number into the mix) after all if you say it 80 times that means they have a 65.25% chance of being attacked as a result if there was an initial 0% chance of them being attacked. (Not that these things are this measurable in the real world, but it illustrates the point)

I say multiple times that people have the right to judge you for the words you speak.  They even have the right to attribute your words to atrocities committed by clearly insane people.  People have the right to believe all sorts of stupid things.  But you posses the right to have a clear conscience about it.

Morality is a personal thing so when people start speaking of things in moral terms applied from outside that personal venue I have the feeling that legislation is not far behind.



Okay.  So how does any of that link a person's words to the actions of another?  Where is the coercian in saying "someone could get hurt" or saying "if they bring a knife you bring a gun"?  Where is the moral connection?



Applying numbers to things that cannot be measured does not help illustrate anything.  Let us visit reality where you say "not that these points are this measurable in the real world" and stay there.  How does saying "Mr. X is like Hitler" or "these people are like the Taliban" convey the message that this person or people are to be attacked or killed?  I, personally, would not see myself moral responsible if I had a crowd of 10 million listening to my words and one nutjob put a bullet in Mr. X's head.  I didn't tell that loon to kill as I would have not wanted Mr. X dead.  I, personally, know my intent and don't feel guilt for the actions of the clearly deranged.

1) So in other words you don't like teh point I am making so you choose to disregard the model I constructed for conversational purposes alone?

2) "someone could get hurt" isn't inherantly threatening. At teh same time who hasn't seen a movie or read a book where that exact phrase hasn't been used as a veiled threat. "I wouldn't make waves if I were you, somebody could get hurt." That is the analogy I am drawing- just because intimidation by implication can be hard to prosecute to the point of being almost legal, so can slanderous/libelous allegations be legal but still within the realm of the immoral.

3) Saying "Mr. X is like Hitler" does *not* *directly* indicate that he should be atacked or killed. It just draws a connection between Mr. X and teh most hated, feared and reviled man in all of human history, whose legacy of inhumanity is so strong that it is virtually impossible to hve a discussion about time travel without someone suggesting a preventative killing of the man. Certainly "needed killed before he could manage much harm" is a commonly percieved attribute of Hitler, and one that is carried in the message of "Mr. X is like Hitler."

And as the oft repeated mantra goes, a lie repeated often enough is believed. There are additional constraints upon that generalization, but for the point I am making it lends itslef to teh mathematical hypothetical. If you have an audience of say 20 million people who listen to you calling a man Hitler repeatedly, and 19 million of them share the opinion that Hitler was someone who should have been killed before he got to power, then the question is when will teh repetition reach a saturation point to where one of those 19 million people will take a shot at the person you are describing as Hitler?

Now maybe that wasn't your intent in describing him as Hitler, maybe you were just trying to rally 20 million votes against the man, but whether or not it is your intent it is a forseeable outcome, not based on the model of a rational listener but based on a cross section of the target market and sociological constants of group dynamic behavior.

Your point is not the point.  It is the method you are using to try to explain it.  Using an imaginary mathematical construct to describe something you admit can't be measured doesn't work for me.  Sorry.



Saying that someone could get hurt is free speech.  If it is used under the context of a threat then you should go to the police.  As you say it will be hard to prove but if said person then hurts you, or conspires to hurt you, then you have a solid, legal case.  But just saying it is protected.  Like the OBL example above, if OBL just said, "Someone needs to destroy NYC" and some other Muslims do it then OBL isn't to blame.  If he funds the destruction, trains the terrorists, and plans out the attack he is then responsible.



I am sure Bush and Cheney could field this one.  Once again, comparing politicians to Hitler is idiotic unless they are committing genocide.  But it isn't a death order.



Are your 20 million listeners forced to listen to you?  No.  There are no number breakdowns that make me responsible for the actions of those 20 million people unless I fund them, plan the assassination, or conspire to do so.  This is not a blatant call for death and murder.



Once again, I don't believe a person is morally resposible, not to mention legally, for the actions of lunatics.  Much less being responsible for the actions of rational people.

If I understand you correctly, people should engage in self-censorship of their opinions and ideas based on the chance, however small, that someone will be motivated to do improper things?  And if said actions are taken then that person is morally accountable?  Nay I say to that.

closer.
I believe that people should engage in self censorship on their choice of how they express their ideas and opinions based on the likelyhood that it will inspire or motivate someone to do reprehensible things.
Because lets face it, calling Obama, or Bush, or Cheney Hitler is far more inflamatory than meaningfull. At the same time that sentiment should not be used to supress legitimate comparisons betwen anyrhing Nazi, whether it is a comparison/contast between the WTC attack and the rheicstag fire or other specific events, in context.
It really isn't that fundamentlly different from basic manners- watching what you say to avoid hurting people. Sure nobody has to say please and thank you, but would it really be anyone's opinion that you should avoid doing so because that would constitute self censorship regarding how you really felt? Perhaps next we should encourage children to back talk their parents to optimize their freedom of self expression?

In reply to silveroak (msg #51):

While I agree that people should use good taste and better manners when engaging in any kind of dialogue I am also of the mind that they are free not to do so.  I also do not agree that people should limit themselves by considering the stupidity or insanity of others.



Parenting is a dictatorship.  At least it should be.  Children do not have the freedom of self expression until they leave their parent's house and checkbook.

It seems that you are promoting a "we as a society" approach to speech and that I am firmly against.  You can only lead by example and I have found good manners goes a hell of a long way in a world that has forgotten them.  But that is me and I won't tell another adult how they should act unless they are acting like an ass to me.  Then I have no problem doing so.

Once again, this whole dialogue is about personal responsibility and that is, well, personal.  I can react to another's good manners as well as their bad manners but I cannot dictate what another person says.  I can vote them out of office or not buy their products but ultimately how they feel about their words is up to them.

two caveats:
1) when dealing with a large enough population that insantity becomes a statistical certainty I *believe* it is personally irresponsible to not take *some* measure of that into consideration
2) I think jumping to the conclusion that someone is out to take away civil liberties and freedom of speach every time someone talks about a need for civility is itslef a form of insanity.

A statistical certainty that cannot be proven to be a result of free speech.  Atrocities and crimes happen.  Blaming society or some mythical downside of free speech is useless and illogical.



True.  Governments and societies have never banned free speech under the context of "civil society" or "protecting society".  Universities have never employed speech codes to spare people's feelings and sensibilities.  It is truly crazy to consider a loss of free speech at the hands of people who truly understand what proper speech and moral responsibility means.  That could never happen.

I think that bringing up "civility" and "moral responsibility" and applying it to only certain people at certain times is a form of censorship of convenience and a neat little way of demonizing the very people you believe are demonizing others.  I would also say that I would never take a lesson in proper, morally responsible speech from a person who claims that Republicans are ideologically identical to the Taliban or a person who claims that those who dare question such calls for civility are of questionable sanity.

Or perhaps I missed the "do as I say not as I do" part of this thread?

I believe it is my right to own as many guns as I want (2 shotguns, 3 rifles, and 2 pistols)  Am I a jerk because I feel it's my right to reasonably protect myself/family?  Am I irresponsible because I believe bullets shouldn't have a shelf life?  Am I an irresponsible jerk because I believe that money I pay in taxes shouldn't go to another country for economic aid when my own country could use it instead?

I live in a state that is actually at war immigrants/drug cartels.  I am no vigilante but I will stand aside and allow my neighborhood to become overran with filth.  I'll take being a jerk (as opposed to being an internet tough guy) anyday of the week if that means my family doesn't have to fear a home invasion or a crack/meth head breaking into my garage to steal tools to pawn.





Oh yeah, It's called fear.  I hold it over my nieces and nephews also, but not the the same extent.  Not to say I beat kids, but having materials taken away from them in a powerful motivator.  Should I be made a fool of in public than a power cord to a gaming system is being taken away (I'd never take the whole system because then they wouldn't see what they are missing) or perhaps they will be grounded to their rooms where I'll take the TV out of. (What's a gaming system worth if there is no TV.)

Fear is powerful.  I'll tell kids in my family the risk of talking to or answering the door for strangers and it's the fear that keeps them from going against me.  I'll call them into the room to watch a news story or make them read a newspaper clip, I make them look at the board of missing kids at stores to show them that what I say is true and that there are bad people.



Let's say you (and your two kids and wife) live next door to me.  I look out my kitchen window to see your son being mugged in your front yard, your wife being raped inside and your daughter smoking crack in the backyard.  Am I responsible for them?  If I do nothing am I responsible for what happened to them through my actions of not acting?



What If I say "Obama is Hitler because he wants to fix our countries economy.. make things affordable.. bring pride by to our country." Is that so wrong?

You misread. I didn't say the *outcome* is a statistical certainty, I said the presence of insanity is a statistical certainty within the audience demographic. If 1 person in 1000 is insane in a potentially dangerous way, then with an audience of 1 million you have a statistical certainty that you have at least one potentially dangerous insane viewer, and I believe you have a *moral* responsibility to modulate the tone of your message appropriately.
Of course if your demographic has a higher concentration of the dangerously insane (for example pro-gun messages tend to be more attractive to the potentially violently insane than peace activists, who tend to attract a less violently dangerous type of insane people) then that also factors into how the message needs to be delivered.


No. However if you feel the need to bring up being heavilly armed in conversations that are not related to guns when it could be taken as a form of intimidation, that could make you a jerk. If you are more concerned with your right to own guns than with making sure they are stored safely so your children don't shoot themselves or their friends, that could make you a jerk. But simply owning lots of guns does not make you a jerk.

Possibly, but thats at a veyr low level based on teh fact that gunpowder (or more accurately nitrocellulose) does in fact break down over time, and ignoring that fact could, in extreemis, prove dangerous to the person using the gun.

 
Nope, I certainly not. Of course walking around the country recieveing the aid loudly voicing that opinion could make you a jerk. Irresponsibility would only be if it is a country prone to violence and you have your kids along.


yes, but in the field of being inaccurate more than reprehensible. Hitlers desire to actually fix the german economy is debateable at best (though he certainly did campaign on the promise). Making things affordable was certainly not a part of his program. wanting to bring pride to the country is a valid comparison though only if you are making a reasonable comparison- essentially that you believe the pride being generated is blind devotion and smug superiority- or perhaps based in a racist doctrine exluding some demographics of the country used as scapegoats rather than a unifying message of hope and pride.
But that's my opinion of the topic.

That doesn't change my opinion at all.  Your characterization of the pro-gun rights crowd as inherently violent flies in the face of the fact that peace marches and protests are inherently, and factually, more violent.  Legal gun owners actually have jobs and don't tend to congregate.  Take the riots in Europe for example.  I am quite comfortable around guns and those who carry them.  "Peace" and "social justice" and "anti-capitalist" are movements that are usually accompanied by riots.  I would put them up against any Second Amendment rally any day.  Prove me wrong if you can.

And again you misrepresent what I said. I *said* that the lunatics who are attracted to pro-gun propaganda (not just rallies) tend to be more violent than the lunatics drawn to peace movement propaganda.In either group the lunatics are a small minority, but I think it is inherantly obvious that a lunatic with a gun obsession is more dangerous than a lunatic with a feeling that the world should unite under the harmoiic resonance of Vega as channeled through Molybydium crystals. yes if you look at teh larger populations responsible gun owners are comfortable with and understand violence well enough to contain themselves while pacifists are inherantly uncomfortable with it and more prone to lose control to a mob mentality.
And those also factor in- a gun enthusiast addressing a crowd is actually safer to be more bombastic with their speach (if not being rebroadcast) than a peace activist, but outside of the crowd situation, (where the gun *lunatic* is more likely to be listening in whatever 'bunker' they have made for themselves) those advocating free gun possesion have a responsibility to make sure they are advocating a *responsible* form of gun ownership, wheras the peace activist can talk about Vega all they want without endangering anyone.
This is my point- the degree of responsibility is based on context, not just a hypothetical ideal rational person.

And this is a false premise and I doubt you have any facts to back up this statement.  I have seen many a "gun obsessed" person and many act the same way as "car obessed" people.  They buy guns/cars.  They read about guns/cars.  They go to gun/car shows.  And while car enthusiasts go to races, gun enthusiasts go to shooting competitions.  Your lonely lunatic with a gun does not reflect the second amendment community.

So, show me where a second amendment rally has broken out in a gun fight.  I can cite numerous examples of social justice and peace marches that go violent.

Gun owners have the responsibility to police their own actions.  The actions of a lunatic do not reflect on gun ownership.  The number of gun laws on the book, many unconstitutional, already restrict gun ownership just as the number of speech laws already restrict what you can say and print.

But you said

Hi, I'm Jarret.  Now you've met me.  While I don't believe it is the whole government who wants to disarm me, I do believe there are certain groups within that do wish to take firearms out of the hands of it's citizens (It's happened).  Am I a jerk because this http://www.usacarry.com/forums...s-away-citizens.html upsets me?  And if you are intimidated by the simple thought of a gun it's more you than me.

Bullets responsibly taken care of can last a very long time. (Just wanted to correct you)



What kinda "pro-gun propaganda" are you talking about?  I've seem more than my share but never any that incites violence.  Telling someone it's ok to own a gun is not telling them to go out an shoot people.

*sigh*
You know I get really tired and upset when people insist on arguing with the point they wanted me to make instead of the one I made.
I *never* said *anything* about violence breaking out at gun rallies. In fact I said the complete opposite, so asking me to prove the opposite of what I said only demonstrates a blind fanaticism that will disregard my actual points in favor of the argument you wish to make.
In addition to which the whole side-debate is a distraction from my actual point which is that the degree of responsibility is based upon the audience demographics rather than a hypothetical rational person.
However, while we are on the side topic- if I say a lunatic who obsesses about guns that doesn't just mean a person who really likes guns. it means a lunatic, live in their parents basement and make plans to shoot everyone who was mean to them *lunatic*.
as opposed to the 'I'm really an alien from vega here to investigate the earth' types.
The kind of lunatics who don't go to gun rallys (the government is probably documenting who goes you know) but will listen to talk radio. I mean a lunatic, not an enthusiast.
Who are, as I believe I mentioned earlier, something like .1% of the population (and that is an off the cuff estimate, not a scientific one).

And yes, gunpowder has a long shelf life. That isn't the same as no shelf life. Nitrcellulose, which is what is used in modern firearms, has a slightly shorter shelf life. Which won't make a huge difference unless you are buying weapons left over from WW1 and WW2.

Finally yes, there are people who would like to take away your guns. They aren't lurking arround every tree, however, and they are going up against one of the orriginal bill of rights rights. Not what I wuld describe as an immenant threat. In fact there are  people in the middle east with no Uranium who want to nuke the US that I would see as a more credible threat (as well as a good argument for letting the enthusiast keep their guns.)

I don't have a problem with guns, I'm just saying that it is a responsible use of free speach to recgnize that when you are dealing with an audience of millions that will include a certain number of the more unstable elements and try to adjust your word choice to avoid setting them off.

And I am saying that you have no responsibility to censor yourself on the wild chance that a loon might perform an action.

There.  That was easy.

Why is that problematic?  No one has said that they're talking only about legal things which are immoral.  They've only said they're talking about moral culpability, not about trying to change any laws.


It fits in as a counter to your statement.  You kept responding that such and such is illegal, so that's that, no need to consider it.  But illegal and immoral aren't the same, so don't dismiss something as outside the conversation because it's illegal.  You're trying to artificially limit the scope of the discussion, and ignore the reasoning by point out facts ("Its illegal!") which don't affect the logic.  That's what I was trying to get at.  Don't tell me "Oh, rape's illegal, so you can't use it as an example of something immoral!"


[emphasis added]
Yep, it's a far cry from that thing that I'm not talking about.  If you remember, I'm talking about things you say with either:
1. the INTENT to result in harm, or
2. a reasonable expectation that harm will result.
If by "some idiot" you mean a person who's actions you'd never expect, then yes, we both agree you can't really be faulted for saying something that unintentionally, and unexpectedly sets him off.  Let me stress that again, so it's not missed.  WE BOTH AGREE that that situations isn't your fault.  So, there's not a whole lot of need to keep bringing that situation up, okay.

In the case of libel and slander, we both seem to agree that it's wrong.  We both agree that it leads to material harm for the person, and we both agree that evidence can be found to shown that it's caused a person harm.  No real need to belabor those points further, I should think.  I know why I think libel's wrong (it causes an intended and predictable harm to someone), but I'm not sure why you do.  I know that you think it causes harm (and I agree), and I know that you think that harm can be proven (and I'd agree that in many cases it can).  But I'm not sure if that's what you consider to be sufficient justification of it being wrong.  If some other statement also causes harm, and can be proven to have caused harm, does that make it wrong as well?  If not, why?

This is important to get out there, because on the part we seem to disagree about (is a person bears any responsibility if they don't intend something to happen, but do expect it to happen as a result of their words) will hinge on what makes it wrong to say something.  What makes it wrong to libel someone?  Is it just causing provable harm?  If so, anything that causes provable harm to someone would also be wrong, no?  If not, then there must be more to the libel issue than you've expressed so far.  And that's what I'm trying to figure out.

The libel example is important because it's an example that we both consider wrong, and which involves other people reacting to your words to cause harm to someone.  It's a very clear example of you being responsible for the effect of your words on other people, even though you don't cause those effects directly yourself, other people, with their own free will, do.

Some further questions that might be useful to get out of the way:
Do you consider libel to be wrong, even if the person doesn't intend to cause harm to anyone?  If they just think it's funny to say false things about you, but by doing so end up causing you to lose your job, are they still responsible for their words?  If I never take you to court over your libel of me, does that mean you did nothing wrong?  Say you make your statements anonymously, so I have no idea who made them, and thus don't know who to take to court, does that make what you did okay?  I'm hoping I know the answers to these questions, but I just want to be sure that we're on the same page, so please answer them.


Libel seems to be a case of holding someone accountable for the "actions of another," as you put it (though, as I've said over and over, I'd say it's holding someone accountable for their own actions of making false statements).  It seems that there are times when you consider it acceptable to hold people accountable for how their words affect other peoples actions.  I'm trying to figure out when those times are, and why.


Actually, we're talking about morality.  You claimed that morality is entirely in ones own mind, so that if someone has a clear conscious, then we can't say otherwise.  If that's true, it applies to rape, murder, theft, etc., as well as anything we bring up here.  If it doesn't apply to those things, then your statements are overly general, and need more information to back them up.  Or are simply wrong.  I'm happy to believe it's the former, but I'm asking you to give the further information that makes the statements true.  If you make a general statement, and I provide a counter example, even if its not something directly related to the discussion, it proves your statement false.  You need to explain why your statement applies to one thing, but not the other.


Not really, no.  You can be morally culpable of things that other people can't prove about you.  Proof is for legality, not morality.  If you did the crime, and no one can prove it, you should go free, but you're still morally guilty of having done it.


All the bad things in the world do bring me down, but I feel guilt over the ones that I feel I can change, or led to.


Facts, yes, proof no.  Very few things can be proven in this world, even in the looser legal sense of the word.  If I put poison into food in a grocery store, and never get caught, I'm still guilty of killing the people who ate it.  I don't feel that anyone else needs to prove the link for me to be responsible for the action.

There are times when I won't know whether I'm responsible for something or not, then I have to go with the best estimate the facts available allow.  But I don't just say, "Well, it's 99.9% likely I did this, but there's always a chance someone else is actually at fault, so I'm not gonna let it bother me."  If I think (even without perfect knowledge or proof) that I caused something, then I consider myself responsible for it.


Exactly!  Now we're getting somewhere.  Whether anyone can prove it or not, I'm still guilty.  I might go free and never be punished due to that lack of proof, but I'm not innocent of it.


If your words cause someone else to die, then you're guilty, not of murder, but of saying things that led to their death.  Doesn't matter (morally) if anyone can prove it, any more than it matters if anyone can prove that I shot the sheriff.  IF my words led to their death, THEN I bear some responsibility for it.  The amount of responsibility depends on my intent, and what one could reasonably expect to be the effect of my words.  Again, even if no one can prove my intent.

I think perhaps where we're getting stuck, is that you're comfortable imagining a hypothetical case, in which someone is murder but no one can prove who did it.  In that case, the murder is a fact, even if we can't prove that the butler did it.  On the other hand, you seem to feel that if we can't prove that someone's words led to some unwanted effect, then the person who said them is completely innocent.  You don't seem to be able to imagine a hypothetical situation in which someone's words did indeed lead to a bad outcome, but in which we're not able to prove it.  Why does one require proof to be true, but the other you can imagine being true without proof?


No, not necessarily.  But you'd probably answer my questions, rather than insulting me for asking them. ;)


Yep, all those things. All of which are "ideas," with the possible exception of money, but the supreme court seems to think money is a type of speech these days, so that seems to be covered too.  We seem to agree that OBL bears responsibility for giving the 9/11 hijackers those things.  I've explained why I think that (intent and expected result).  Will you please explain why you do?


I would say training is and planning are very, very much an exchange of ideas.  Hard to think of a better example of it, really.  Money, I'll grant, is more problematic.  But I'd say even if OBL didn't fund the hijackers, but instead only trained, indoctrinated, and planned with them, he'd still bear a whole lot of blame for 9/11.  But tell me, why do you feel training and planning don't fall under the category of exchanging ideas?


Doesn't sound crazy, just sounds like two contradictory statements.  If we really could say whatever we want, then we could train, support, plan, indoctrinate, and all manner of other things, with terrorists.  The fact that you think planning a terrorist attack is wrong, shows that you think some forms of exchanging ideas are wrong (and I agree).  The question is what determines when an exchange of ideas is wrong, and why?  Is it the end effect?  Is it the intent?  Is it the expected outcome?  Would OBL not have been wrong to train and plot with the hijackers if they had got caught and stopped before they could carry out their plot?  I would argue that yes, he would be.  And that implies that it's not just the end result that matters.  Intent and expected outcome seem like good candidates for me.  What do you think?  And please, give these questions an honest answer.  Don't just dismiss them because they're not what you want to focus on.


I agree there's a big difference, and I've stated it multiple times: intent and expected result.  Do you agree that's what the difference is, or do you think there's some other result?


Yes, that's very clear.  But it doesn't explain why, and it doesn't explain exceptions that you yourself have provided (such as libel).

I think a big part of the problem is that you're assuming that I'm arguing about sarah palin or conservatives on Fox or whatever, and think anything else I say is off topic.  Let me be clear:  I am NOT saying that people are responsible for the unintended and unpredictable actions others take in reaction to their words.  Clear?  So no need to argue against that position, since no one is taking it.  Where the real disagreement seems to come, is over how much responsibility one holds for unintended but predicted actions of others in response to ones words.  I hope we agree that they bear plenty of responsibility for intended and predictable consequences.  The issue of intended by unpredictable consequences seems moot, since how could you intend for a result you didn't expect to happen.

A couple other points from your discussion with Silveroak


[emphasis added]
That seems to fall under the category of unpredictable.  I think both silveroak and I are talking about times when it's not just a "wild chance" to a rather significant chance.  If you actually expect a loon to perform some action in response to your words, then I'd argue you do, indeed, have a responsibility not to say them (or at least need to weigh up that cost as part of your decision on whether to say it or not).



[emphasis added]
No, not however small, but when it becomes not just a small chance.  Again, it's about reasonable expectations.  If a reasonable person would expect someone to react in a certain way, then they should probably consider their words much more carefully.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:19, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

At war with immigrants?!  Drug cartels, sure, but you feel your state is at war with immigrants?


Just quoting this for reference a bit later...



Yes, indeed!  I wouldn't call fear magical, per se, but it's certainly an influence you have over your kids.  And other people's kids.  And (and here's the important bit) over adults as well.  All to different degrees, granted, but you (or at least some people) can scare an adult into taking an action just like you can scare your kids into taking (or not taking) one.  You have more influence over your kids than you do over your neighbors, but you still have some influence over them.  The difference is one of degree, not category.


All well and good, and all closely related to how people try to control adults as well.  Fear is probably one of the primary tools people use to control other adults, actually.  Listen during campaign time, and you'll hear thousands of adds that if so-and-so gets elected, all manner of hell is going to break loose, everythings going to go completely wrong, the world will end, etc.  And it works, to a large degree, because, as you say, fear is powerful.  But it's not limited kids.


If you do nothing, then yes, I'd say you have some responsibility.  You didn't rape, or steal, or mug, or whatever, but you did make a decision not to do anything at all, and I'd say that if you're witnessing someone getting raped, and just shrug and think "hey, it's not my wife, what do I care," then that's an immoral decision.  What you actually do depends on what you expect to happen in response to any given action you could take, so if you're worried you'd get killed if you ran over there to stop it, then calling the cops would seem a reasonable decision.  But simply shrugging and turning the TV on seems like an immoral act to me.  And, judging by the statement you made above, it seems like you'd actually feel it was too.  That statement implies that you do feel some responsibility to not just let other people do whatever they like in your community, as long as its not you that gets hurt.

and I agree. But what about when the chance isn't wild?
If one person in a million is the dangerous sort who I might ant to tone my message down for and I'm talking to 20 or 100 people, no problem. Sure they might be in that crowd, but I can't be expected to anticipate tehir being there.
But if it is 1 in a million and I have an audience of 40 million? A reasonable anticipation in that case is that I am reaching 40 loons who might perform an action. Does that carry *no* responsibility in your version of what it means to be a responsible human being?

I immediately throw out your math.  But I do agree that as long as no one breaks the laws of the land, libel and slander, and merely speaks his opinions then he has no responsibility for the actions of others.  If the person feels morally responsible for the actions of another then that is between that person and their sence of morality.

I would also state that does not stop others from findng you morally responsible and voicing their opinion on that matter.

Are we clear now?  Tycho can answer as well.  I don't have time currently for a blow by blow on your post.

To be honest, not really.  You haven't really answered the questions I've asked, or explained why you think what you do.  We know what you think, but we're trying to understand the reasoning behind it.  We're not just asking you to repeat what you've said, but to explain it, and consider the reasoning critically (ie, answering questions that challenge it).


Why does the law matter?  If we stop making libel and slander a crime, do they become morally acceptable?  What if you break the law, but don't get caught?  If you're never found guilty of libel in a court of law, does that affect how responsible you are?

Or, coming at it from another direction, why are you responsible for the actions of others in the case of libel and slander?  What makes them specific exceptions?

Yet another way of asking it:  Is libel bad because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's bad?  I'd argue the latter.  Would you agree?  If so, what makes it bad?


Again, is this generally applicable to all things, or just this specific case?  If the later, why?

so in short "What am I, my brother's keeper?"

Of course you realize you are 'agreeing' to the opposite of what I stated here, right? So long as tehy do not break the law they bear no *legal* responsibility. If you consider legal responsibility to be the sole definition of responsibility however you are, in technical terms, morally bankrupt (moral resposnibility has no value to you, only legal responsibility)

Do you you really mean to say that if you shouted out to a crowd of people that someone should be shot down in the street like the dog they are, then someone from that crowd actually shot the person in question, you wouldn't feel the slightest twinge of anything about it?

I would say that not forcing my morality upon another for actions they have no reposibility for to be a very moral stance.  No where do I say that legal responsbility is the only definition of responsibility.  One is responsible for their personal actions and not the actions of another.

Keep twisting it though until you torture it into the definition that fits your personal definitions.



Ask Al Sharpton that question.

Anway, I would say that this particular example falls under various incitement laws and could possibly be taken to criminal or civil court.  This is a better example than rape, murder, mathematics, or any other bad examples where you KNOW that a person is morally and legally in the wrong.

Personally, since you asked, I would never call for anyone to be gunned down in the street.  It's not how I roll.  That is me using my morality so I would never face that issue.  I would hope that someone who did call for that would feel a responsibility but, once again, that is up to them to actually feel that responsibility.

In reply to Tycho (msg #67):

To clarify the purpose of this thread: We are discussing the concept of a person being morally responsible for another's actions based on them voicing their opinion.  Am I correct in that?  Because the defining of morality is not the original concept by my understanding.

Of course you can be morally responsible for another's actions by giving them your opinion.  It merely depends on the context.  I give people my opinions and tell them what to do for a living...and I'm held to a very high moral/ethical standard of responsibility if they listen to my opinions.

In reply to Heath (msg #71):

And that is your personal choice.

I don't understand your point there.  Please elaborate.

In reply to Heath (msg #73):

Easy.  Never do I say that people can't hold you morally responsible.  Never do I say a person can't hold themselves morally responsible.  In both cases it is up to that person.

Your profession, a consultant perhaps, calls for you to stand by your word and your opinions so you consider your words carefully.  Your livelihood depends on a well thought-out opinion and you want to do the best for those who come to you.  You see it as your duty to do the best for them.  That is a moral position to take and one I would look for in a person whose opinions I would be acting on.

But should one of your customers go and shoot a competitor because you talked about their "targeting" the competition I would not hold you responsible.  You might hold yourself responsible but that is your choice.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:58, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

Your analogy doesn't work with me.  I'm a lawyer.  If I tell people to do things "as their lawyer," and they do them, I am absolutely held accountable.

A moral lawyer?  *stifles laughter*

Anyway.  Is your morality dictated by law?  You said you were morally responsible, which you are, but you seem to be saying that the legal and professional aspects require you to be.  I would disagree.

I am ethically, morally, legally, and administerially responsible.  If I tell someone, for example, that it's okay to commit a fraud, and they do it, I can be stripped of my license, thrown in jail, and excommunicated from my church.  How much more "responsible" do you need than that?

That was teh defined purpose of this thread. some people decided to use it as a stage to defend being bombastic in legal terms and looking tos core poloitical points in terms of sides instead of trying to use general concepts that would apply to anyone.

As I've said before, I prefer to phrase it as being morally responsible for our own actions, including the action of speech.


If we're discussing if people are morally responsible for something, then how we define morally responsible seems pretty closely linked to the topic.

These boards are, broadly speaking, for the discussion of ideas, not just statement of them (though people are free to simply state their beliefs without wanting to discuss them further if they like).  It's certainly not out of line to try to dig deeper and look at the underlying reasoning behind someone's position, test assumptions, etc.  To be honest, that's more or less why I find the forum interesting.

Really, though, I think we'd make more progress if you answered the questions I asked, rather than coming up with reasons to avoid doing so.  Or if you just prefer to state your position and aren't interested in having others explore the thinking behind it, that's fine too, just say so.

While I don't approve of T.V. in kids bedrooms, I agree with the rest of this statement.  Just wanted to let people know.