3 ms·

imagine this thought experiment “You are presented incontrovertible evidence for the fact that your post inspired someone to kill” should we lock you up for m

imagine this thought experiment “You are presented incontrovertible evidence for the fact that your post inspired someone to kill” should we lock you up for murder?

woodruffw 4y ago
I think you meant this to be silly, but we do actually do this. Cult leaders are held responsible for the actions of their adherents, given the degree of control necessary to compel someone to kill on their behalf.
- realce 4y ago
  Only if they instruct their followers to actually commit violence though.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Right. That's the "incontrovertible evidence" part. The analogy requires each step to actually be true.
- mc32 4y ago
  …yes?… but it’s more than you were a cult leader and your follower did something bad. You have to have psychologically manipulated them as well -ala Manson.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Yes, hence "incontrovertible evidence." I think the GP was trying to introduce some ambiguity with "inspired" instead of "manipulated."
- throwaway98797 4y ago
  this helps the point reasoning by analogy across different criminality is filled with risks i’m hopeful society and eventual the law will catch up with what is reasonable. sadly, i suspect what is reasonable to the majority won’t be reasonable to me. or worse yet the flaw of reasoning will be borne by future generations like the blood letting cures of prior centuries i offer no solution only the occasional comment bordering on full blown troll.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phoe-krk 4y ago
The recent Kiwifarms incident suggests that the answer is "yes".
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  No, it's even worse than that. Because the question with KF is more like: "if someone unrelated and at a later time, screeches over and over about how someone killed themselves because of your posts, but just forgot to mention you when they did it while listing their reasons, is it your fault?"
jakelazaroff 4y ago
That analogy makes no sense. If I point a gun at something and pull the trigger, it’s going to get shot, because that’s how guns work. It’s not a random other event that just so happened to occur after the first — it’s the expected outcome.
wilde 4y ago
Yes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
- WFHRenaissance 4y ago
  This only applies to directly soliciting a specific crime. That isn't what's happening here.
  - wilde 4y ago
    How is killing not a specific crime? Like usually the “incontrovertible” is the hard part.
im3w1l 4y ago
It depends on what was said. If the post spoke the whole truth and nothing but the truth, e.g. "your wife has an affair", then no. If the post is "I'll give you $x for offing him", then yes. If the post is manipulative and slanderous it becomes more complicated. Maybe some of the blame, but not all of it?
WJW 4y ago
If it could be proven that: 1. You intended to inspire that person to kill. 2. You could reasonably know that someone who would read your post would actually murder someone. Then yes, this is clearly murder by proxy. Tornado has never been shy about mentioning how it could be used for illegal purposes, nor was it unknown that NK was using it to launder their ill-gotten gains. Being sanctioned was only a question of time IMO.

imagine this thought experiment “You are presented incontrovertible evidence for the fact that your post inspired someone to kill” should we lock you up for murder?

woodruffw 4y ago

I think you meant this to be silly, but we do actually do this. Cult leaders are held responsible for the actions of their adherents, given the degree of control necessary to compel someone to kill on their behalf.

realce 4y ago
Only if they instruct their followers to actually commit violence though.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Right. That's the "incontrovertible evidence" part. The analogy requires each step to actually be true.
mc32 4y ago
…yes?… but it’s more than you were a cult leader and your follower did something bad. You have to have psychologically manipulated them as well -ala Manson.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Yes, hence "incontrovertible evidence." I think the GP was trying to introduce some ambiguity with "inspired" instead of "manipulated."
throwaway98797 4y ago
this helps the point reasoning by analogy across different criminality is filled with risks i’m hopeful society and eventual the law will catch up with what is reasonable. sadly, i suspect what is reasonable to the majority won’t be reasonable to me. or worse yet the flaw of reasoning will be borne by future generations like the blood letting cures of prior centuries i offer no solution only the occasional comment bordering on full blown troll.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

phoe-krk 4y ago

The recent Kiwifarms incident suggests that the answer is "yes".

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
No, it's even worse than that. Because the question with KF is more like: "if someone unrelated and at a later time, screeches over and over about how someone killed themselves because of your posts, but just forgot to mention you when they did it while listing their reasons, is it your fault?"

jakelazaroff 4y ago

That analogy makes no sense. If I point a gun at something and pull the trigger, it’s going to get shot, because that’s how guns work. It’s not a random other event that just so happened to occur after the first — it’s the expected outcome.

wilde 4y ago

Yes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

WFHRenaissance 4y ago
This only applies to directly soliciting a specific crime. That isn't what's happening here.
- wilde 4y ago
  How is killing not a specific crime? Like usually the “incontrovertible” is the hard part.

im3w1l 4y ago

It depends on what was said. If the post spoke the whole truth and nothing but the truth, e.g. "your wife has an affair", then no. If the post is "I'll give you $x for offing him", then yes. If the post is manipulative and slanderous it becomes more complicated. Maybe some of the blame, but not all of it?

WJW 4y ago

If it could be proven that: 1. You intended to inspire that person to kill. 2. You could reasonably know that someone who would read your post would actually murder someone. Then yes, this is clearly murder by proxy. Tornado has never been shy about mentioning how it could be used for illegal purposes, nor was it unknown that NK was using it to launder their ill-gotten gains. Being sanctioned was only a question of time IMO.