2 ms·

> The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend yo

by MiroF 6y ago

> The violence travels back in time to compel action on the part of the recipient in order to prevent your anticipated violent action. So in order to defend your interpretation of free speech, I am now morally culpable for actions that "travel back in time"? If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? What is it that causes the violence to travel back in time? If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible? It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces.

unishark 6y ago
This has gone in a funny direction. Telling someone to commit murder, with the knowledge that they will carry out this act, legally fulfills the requirements of mens rea and actus reus for the crime of murder. It isn't a speech crime per se. We don't need a new law regulating anyone's speech to punish people in these events. Convicting someone for "inciting violence" should require the same standards as any other case supposedly tying someone to a murder. For one thing you need an actual victim and make the case they caused it beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets messy (law always does) but I think that's because many people argue in bad faith, really trying to twist definitions to punish people for opinions they disapprove of.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? This is the entire premise of the law taking into account intent. If you shoot at someone in an attempt to kill them but miss, you're still going to jail. > If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible In that case your intention to kill them if they didn't do it wouldn't have been the cause of them doing it (they did it without even knowing about it), so why would you be? Their being aware of it is necessary to cause them to do it, but it isn't the part which is the root cause of the harm. It's like calling a prohibition on knowingly transferring weapons to terrorists a free speech violation because you have to call the weapons depot and tell them to ship the weapons in order to cause it to happen. The speech isn't the thing being prohibited, it's the action. The fact that the speech is necessary to cause it to happen isn't a restriction on speech, because the speech isn't sufficient to cause it to happen -- it has to be combined with some business arrangement with the weapons depot in which you e.g. pay them for the weapons they're shipping, or it doesn't happen. And it's that part which is the crime. > It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces. Separate them into two different parties and see what happens. Osama bin Laden offers a million dollars to anyone who kills a US soldier. CNN reports this fact. Someone hears it from CNN and commits the murder in order to collect the money. Is it CNN or Osama bin Laden who is guilty of the crime?

by MiroF 6y ago

unishark 6y ago

This has gone in a funny direction. Telling someone to commit murder, with the knowledge that they will carry out this act, legally fulfills the requirements of mens rea and actus reus for the crime of murder. It isn't a speech crime per se. We don't need a new law regulating anyone's speech to punish people in these events. Convicting someone for "inciting violence" should require the same standards as any other case supposedly tying someone to a murder. For one thing you need an actual victim and make the case they caused it beyond a reasonable doubt. It gets messy (law always does) but I think that's because many people argue in bad faith, really trying to twist definitions to punish people for opinions they disapprove of.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If it never occurs how can it travel back in time? This is the entire premise of the law taking into account intent. If you shoot at someone in an attempt to kill them but miss, you're still going to jail. > If I had planned to kill the speaker if they didn't do the action, but didn't tell them (and they don't have an expectation that I would kill them) - then they killed the person, would I not be responsible In that case your intention to kill them if they didn't do it wouldn't have been the cause of them doing it (they did it without even knowing about it), so why would you be? Their being aware of it is necessary to cause them to do it, but it isn't the part which is the root cause of the harm. It's like calling a prohibition on knowingly transferring weapons to terrorists a free speech violation because you have to call the weapons depot and tell them to ship the weapons in order to cause it to happen. The speech isn't the thing being prohibited, it's the action. The fact that the speech is necessary to cause it to happen isn't a restriction on speech, because the speech isn't sufficient to cause it to happen -- it has to be combined with some business arrangement with the weapons depot in which you e.g. pay them for the weapons they're shipping, or it doesn't happen. And it's that part which is the crime. > It seems that the key action here that causes this "travel back in time" effect is speech and the expectations it produces. Separate them into two different parties and see what happens. Osama bin Laden offers a million dollars to anyone who kills a US soldier. CNN reports this fact. Someone hears it from CNN and commits the murder in order to collect the money. Is it CNN or Osama bin Laden who is guilty of the crime?