Sticks an Stones

[boyntonstu]

Remember, "Sticks and stones will break my bones,
but words will never harm me"?

My question is this:

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?

Let's say you know a really obnoxious person that bugs you, should that person be murdered?

What do you think of a society that would order the death penalty for words?

Would you ever murder someone for using words that offend you?

[HansMustermann]

Well, I don't think the death penalty is defendable in any case. Even for murder or rape, if nothing else, you have a non-zero chance of convicting the wrong guy/gal. If you later discover the error, there's nothing you can do for someone you executed any more.

ETA: and to answer the actual question, I see murder as even less justifiable in any case. I certainly wouldn't give a Random Joe free hand to enact the kind of justice I'd deny to courts of law.

[Fnord]

Remember, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me"?

My question is this questions are these:
There ... corrected it for you.

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?
No. None whatsoever. Banning or suspending them from a website, yes -- but never murdering them.

Let's say you know a really obnoxious person that bugs you, should that person be murdered?
"Should"? No. Certainly not for just being obnoxious and annoying. Again, banning and suspension are more viable options for website staff.

What do you think of a society that would order the death penalty for words?
Autocratic, dictatorial and primitive ... and very much afraid of the truth.

Would you ever murder someone for using words that offend you?
No. This is based on many instances from the past where I was sorely tempted to commit violence against an obnoxious and annoying person, and did not yield to the temptation. But if I were running a website, I would certainly wield the ban-hammer in such cases.

So ... what claims are you trying to build a case for before you even make them?

[boyntonstu]

Well, I don't think the death penalty is defendable in any case. Even for murder or rape, if nothing else, you have a non-zero chance of convicting the wrong guy/gal. If you later discover the error, there's nothing you can do for someone you executed any more.

ETA: and to answer the actual question, I see murder as even less justifiable in any case. I certainly wouldn't give a Random Joe free hand to enact the kind of justice I'd deny to courts of law.

I'm with you 100%

[Thunder]

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?

no. human beings should have enough self control to refrain from murdering someone over simple words.

[gregthehammer]

Depends on the word?!

In the case of the word "NI!!" I'd say have at it, but with one caveat:
you must depose of said utterer of "ni" with.... a herrring

[slingblade]

Remember, "Sticks and stones will break my bones,
but words will never harm me"?

My question is this:

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?

Let's say you know a really obnoxious person that bugs you, should that person be murdered?

What do you think of a society that would order the death penalty for words?

Would you ever murder someone for using words that offend you?



As humor goes, this isn't very amusing.

[The Atheist]

Remember, "Sticks and stones will break my bones,
but words will never harm me"?

My question is this:

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?

Absolutely.

If someone says to me: "I have a gun and am going to kill you", I fully intend to shoot first.

Let's say you know a really obnoxious person that bugs you, should that person be murdered?

Sure. I could think of a couple of candidate right away.

I laughed when Jerry Falwell died and intend to do the same when Pat Robertson croaks. If someone were to murder him, I'd gladly help the murderer escape from police.

What do you think of a society that would order the death penalty for words?

Depends what words they're being killed for.

Would you ever murder someone for using words that offend you?

Sure. "I'm going to have sex with your daughter"

That'd work for me. (She's 10)

[Lothian]

Remember, "Sticks and stones will break my bones,
but words will never harm me"?

My question is this:

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for ... writing words?
Have you read any Jeffrey Archer?

[drkitten]

My question is this:

Is there ever be any justification for murdering a human being for uttering or writing words?

Certainly. Espionage in wartime, for example, is punishable by death.


What do you think of a society that would order the death penalty for words?


I would think them infinitely more sensible than one that didn't recognize the number of ways that words can in fact kill someone.

[KingMerv00]

If someone says to me: "I have a gun and am going to kill you", I fully intend to shoot first.


I would think them infinitely more sensible than one that didn't recognize the number of ways that words can in fact kill someone.

I'm not sure that is in the spirit of the OP's question. I think he means to say "Is it ever OK to kill SOLELY because you have taken offense to the speech of another?" I could be wrong of course.

Preventing injuries to others is a separate ball of wax.

[HansMustermann]

Certainly. Espionage in wartime, for example, is punishable by death.

While I understand your point, I would like to point out that my objection applies here too: there _are_ people who have been falsely accused of espionage and executed, although they were innocent. Sometimes honest judiciary mistake, sometime too much zeal, sometimes as just an excuse to kill someone you don't like, and sometimes even preemptively for being in a category that might sympathise with the enemy.

As a trivial example of someone who was probably killed for nothing, take Mata Hari. The only information about her working for the Germans came in a German transmission... in a code which the Germans already knew had been broken, and hadn't used before or after that transmission. And included enough information to identify her, rather unusually when dealing with actual secret ops.

As another example, although he was not actually executed, take Dreyfus. Not only was the information incriminating him shoddy from the start, but even when more solid information became available to establish his innocence and identif the real spy, it was discarded. It took a scandal to get him out of one of the worst penal colonies France had.

But imagine that the death penalty had been applicable and applied. You can't set free and reinstate someone you executed.

And moving forward to the last category, a lot of the purges and deportations of Stalin had been people who, by ethnicity or other associations, _might_ have sympathised with the enemy.

But at any rate, I feel that the risk of executing an innocenct outweighs any other considerations even there. Throw him/her in a maximum security prison, yes. Execute, no.

I would think them infinitely more sensible than one that didn't recognize the number of ways that words can in fact kill someone.

That's a whole different problem, IMHO. Even recognizing that words can kill, there still is the separate issue of maybe executing the wrong person altogether.