4 ms·

18 USC 19 has laws about conspiracy that might cover this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 It is

• lesuorac 3y ago
  I suspect it comes down to the word "intent" in part a. It seems a bit weird to require intent but also claim incompetence as not a defense. > Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.
  • _8j50 3y ago
    Do you then think it is clearly prosecutable under this law if along with the doxxing, an encouragement to others is made to cause the victim harm (implied or otherwise) knowinf that could lead to violence? E.g. they doxx someone and post a message like "this person his horrible, teach them a lesson". Or if they simply doxx a person and agree/thumbsup/like the post of someone threatening violence in that same thread/context.
• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 18 USC 19 Pedantic, but 18 USC ch. 19;and if you are going to specifically refer to 18 USC § 373, you might as well cite the section, not the chapter. More substantively, I think the practical the first sentence of the linked section: “Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony [...]”. While, you say it is “It is common knowledge that stalking, harrasment and even violence (all criminal acts) can occur to someone if you doxx them”, awareness of a risk—and even moreso “common knowledge”—is very far from enough to show specific intent (if it was a recklessness or criminal negligence standard, that'd be more useful.) > How I interpreted that is you can't say you didn't expect the person to be harmed No, that's not what it says. What it says is that if the person you command, solicit, etc., to commit the act could not be convicted of the target felony because of the absence of some specific required mental state, or because of incompetence or legal immunity, that doesn’t stop you, as the soliciting party, from being convicted under § 373. > There was no other possible intent that can be used as a defense that does not involve intending to cause harm to the victim by hoping others will do it for you. The requisite intent is not vague harm, but to provoke a specific felony. To have evidence to support that is hard, and in many cases the intent may actually be, well, general harm.
  • _8j50 3y ago
    Thank you, that was the explanation I was looking for. > awareness of a risk—and even moreso “common knowledge”—is very far from enough to show specific intent (if it was a recklessness or criminal negligence standard, that'd be more useful.) Can it not be proven that any reasonable person would interpret doxxing, especially when hostile intent by the doxxer can be proven, as intent to have others cause harm? Is the criminal standard of intent that it has to be specific with respect to who would cause harm? Isn't it enough that the victim and hostility are specific and provable? If you yell fire in a crowd for example, you don't know who will panic and stampede over others but the common knowledge that a stampede might happen is enough, you can't just say "it's a prank". That was the line of thinking I had.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]