4 ms·

You can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.

rootusrootus 4y ago
The court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  That strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Even the private conversation does not raise to the level of conspiracy without a plan.
seydor 4y ago
it's not coercing though
gowld 4y ago
One action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Convincing someone to commit suicide (not a criminal act per se anymore) is still a crime in many jurisdictions. Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society. Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
It really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post. The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility. I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit). In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted. When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Sure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is." Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness. I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.

The court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
That strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Even the private conversation does not raise to the level of conspiracy without a plan.

seydor 4y ago

it's not coercing though

gowld 4y ago

One action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.

jojobas 4y ago
Convincing someone to commit suicide (not a criminal act per se anymore) is still a crime in many jurisdictions. Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society. Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post. The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility. I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.

giantg2 4y ago
"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit). In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted. When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Sure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is." Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness. I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.