Maeve Roughton asks if it’s becoming a crime to think the wrong thoughts.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/120/Arresting_Thoughts
Arresting Thoughts
-
Gary Childress
- Posts: 8583
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: Arresting Thoughts
We live in the age of doxing and Wikileaks. Nothing is private and something we said in a forum 10 years ago during a difficult breakup with a girlfriend can come back and haunt us. This world is junk, thanks to hackers. At least the government, though it also collects information, generally seems to keep it quiet and doesn't throw it out on social media for all the world to mock you with.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:47 pm Maeve Roughton asks if it’s becoming a crime to think the wrong thoughts.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/120/Arresting_Thoughts
Re: Arresting Thoughts
It's not the world that's junk, it's the super abundance of human garbage that lives on it which isn't all due to hackers. We just can't seem to get rid of our own garbage whether it's human or the kind that's human-produced. Eliminating the former would in practice not be particularly difficult.
Re: Arresting Thoughts
I thought this was a very well-written article. The author points out that the data that's available about each and every citizen who uses the Internet can turn on you. And turn on you with a vehemence... you can be jailed for your thoughts, in an unprecedented move toward protecting soicety's weak ones.
I liked the way the author presented his case.
I did not like this portion:
"Yet in the era of cannibal cops and fifteen-year-old sexting ‘pedophiles’, how far is too far? At what point does a fantasy become a conspiracy, or a sexual inquiry become a lewd act? Furthermore, at what point do thoughts, interests, and persuasions cease to be entirely yours and become fodder both for the world and for the legal system?"
How far is too far? At what point is it too far? In particular, and in its most basic, how long is a string?
These are questions that those like to propose, who enjoy processes more than end results, who postpone their own deadlines just to read one more book on the topic, who believe divergent answers are more valuable and likeable than convergent answers.
There were people in my life, close relatives and family, who thought this above way, and that was the only thing I did not like about them.
Then again, they probably did not like the fact that I'm a convergent thinker, I like closure, and I like to accomplish tasks as quickly as possible.
The questions the article's author proposes are unanswerable; they are falsely and misleadingly wise-sounding, while at the same time pertinent and important.
The truth is that there are no definite borders between any two things that are similar but conceptually divided by a border. The larger you enlarge the border under a microscope, the more hazy and less precise it becomes.
At what point does love become hate in an unsuccessful marriage?
At what point does hatred become a rage?
At what point does water boil?
At what point should a principal remove a student from the school for disruptive behaviour?
At what point does a person merit promotion and a raise?
At what point does a point cease to be a point?
I liked the way the author presented his case.
I did not like this portion:
"Yet in the era of cannibal cops and fifteen-year-old sexting ‘pedophiles’, how far is too far? At what point does a fantasy become a conspiracy, or a sexual inquiry become a lewd act? Furthermore, at what point do thoughts, interests, and persuasions cease to be entirely yours and become fodder both for the world and for the legal system?"
How far is too far? At what point is it too far? In particular, and in its most basic, how long is a string?
These are questions that those like to propose, who enjoy processes more than end results, who postpone their own deadlines just to read one more book on the topic, who believe divergent answers are more valuable and likeable than convergent answers.
There were people in my life, close relatives and family, who thought this above way, and that was the only thing I did not like about them.
Then again, they probably did not like the fact that I'm a convergent thinker, I like closure, and I like to accomplish tasks as quickly as possible.
The questions the article's author proposes are unanswerable; they are falsely and misleadingly wise-sounding, while at the same time pertinent and important.
The truth is that there are no definite borders between any two things that are similar but conceptually divided by a border. The larger you enlarge the border under a microscope, the more hazy and less precise it becomes.
At what point does love become hate in an unsuccessful marriage?
At what point does hatred become a rage?
At what point does water boil?
At what point should a principal remove a student from the school for disruptive behaviour?
At what point does a person merit promotion and a raise?
At what point does a point cease to be a point?
Re: Arresting Thoughts
I don’t have a citation handy but believe I’ve known of at least one person convicted of a thought crime and never read anything about it being challenged. Several years ago i read about a Disney executive who chatted online with an adult federal agent whose profile indicated it was an underage female. The conversation was erotic in nature. He never chatted a minor nor met or touched anyone. The report I read states he was convicted for chatting someone he BELIEVED was a minor. Convicted entirely for his silent belief. His state of mind. Tracked down and entrapped in order to punish thoughts and wishes viewed as vile. But for that alleged belief the prosecution was utterly impossible and would have had no basis. That troubled me and I’ve never seen any subsequent history on the case.