You have to look beyond what was literally, directly said to what the most extreme people who are listening to those remarks might infer, or might feel encouraged to do. Saying that people should burn down AI labs and the employees should be jailed for attempted murder is not literally, directly saying someone should commit violence against the employees of AI companies, but it is easy for someone who is in an extremist mindset and who is emotionally unwell to take what was said that extra step further.
And there is no point arguing about what is theoretically, in principle true or not when this violence is already happening, or being threatened.
No, actually; the legal standard used in courts is what was actually said, which needs to include a clear call for violence to be carried out at some point in the near future. It’s extremely frustrating to me that you’re misusing legal terms to lend your arguments weight they don’t hold; please cease to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio contains plenty of helpful information if you’d like to learn more about what “incitement to violence” means in America.
I didn’t say it was an incitement to violence, I said it was perilously close to one. What that means is that the person making such statements can, indeed, completely avoid legal liability for such statements, and can plausibly deny any moral responsibility if any violence occurs, although the actual effect on a very small minority of people listening — who aren’t in a headspace where they can safely process these kinds of inflammatory proclamations — might be, plausibly, to encourage violence.
The important question is not what kind of speech is illegal or not, the important question is what kind of speech might be taken as encouragement (or discouragement) of the kind of violence or threatened violence that just happened, whether or not that is the speaker’s intention. I’m not trying to make a claim about what’s illegal or not, I’m making a claim about what kind of public statements are responsible or irresponsible.
It’s not “perilously close”, because it’s very different from incitement to violence. I have explained that incitement to violence requires a call for violence which is time-scoped to the near future; Sherman’s statement did not include a call for violence at all. You are correct that he bears no moral responsibility for the actions of people who heard his statements.
“Perilously close” has no legal definition, so what you are asserting is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. My intention in using “perilously close” was to convey that such statements have a similar kind of danger to statements that would meet the legal definition of incitement to violence, even though they are perfectly legal.
You know that I did not say people who make such statements bear no moral responsibility for how their words are interpreted, so I’m not sure what your intention is in making that false statement.
Since you have not signaled good faith, I won’t engage further.
You have to look beyond what was literally, directly said to what the most extreme people who are listening to those remarks might infer, or might feel encouraged to do. Saying that people should burn down AI labs and the employees should be jailed for attempted murder is not literally, directly saying someone should commit violence against the employees of AI companies, but it is easy for someone who is in an extremist mindset and who is emotionally unwell to take what was said that extra step further.
And there is no point arguing about what is theoretically, in principle true or not when this violence is already happening, or being threatened.
No, actually; the legal standard used in courts is what was actually said, which needs to include a clear call for violence to be carried out at some point in the near future. It’s extremely frustrating to me that you’re misusing legal terms to lend your arguments weight they don’t hold; please cease to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio contains plenty of helpful information if you’d like to learn more about what “incitement to violence” means in America.
I didn’t say it was an incitement to violence, I said it was perilously close to one. What that means is that the person making such statements can, indeed, completely avoid legal liability for such statements, and can plausibly deny any moral responsibility if any violence occurs, although the actual effect on a very small minority of people listening — who aren’t in a headspace where they can safely process these kinds of inflammatory proclamations — might be, plausibly, to encourage violence.
The important question is not what kind of speech is illegal or not, the important question is what kind of speech might be taken as encouragement (or discouragement) of the kind of violence or threatened violence that just happened, whether or not that is the speaker’s intention. I’m not trying to make a claim about what’s illegal or not, I’m making a claim about what kind of public statements are responsible or irresponsible.
It’s not “perilously close”, because it’s very different from incitement to violence. I have explained that incitement to violence requires a call for violence which is time-scoped to the near future; Sherman’s statement did not include a call for violence at all. You are correct that he bears no moral responsibility for the actions of people who heard his statements.
“Perilously close” has no legal definition, so what you are asserting is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. My intention in using “perilously close” was to convey that such statements have a similar kind of danger to statements that would meet the legal definition of incitement to violence, even though they are perfectly legal.
You know that I did not say people who make such statements bear no moral responsibility for how their words are interpreted, so I’m not sure what your intention is in making that false statement.
Since you have not signaled good faith, I won’t engage further.
They do not have a similar kind of danger; you are making false equivalences. Thank you for ceasing your censorious fearmongering.