3 ms·
> If I met a paranoid schizophrenic and decided to spend the next few months building up a relationship with him and confirming all his delusions (yes, you're s
by metalcrow 10mo ago
> If I met a paranoid schizophrenic and decided to spend the next few months building up a relationship with him and confirming all his delusions (yes, you're special with divine powers, yes your family and friends are all spying on you and trying to spiritually weaken you, here's how they're doing it, by the way you have to do whatever it takes to stop them, etc) I would expect to be charged with something if he then went and killed someone.
Assuming you don't attempt to tell them to do something I'm not actually sure you would. The first amendment is pretty strong, but ianal.
- barbazoo 10mo agoHow does the first amendment apply here? > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This seems to be orthogonal to the issue of influencing someone to do something and being held partially responsible for the outcome.
- metalcrow 10mo agothe "abridging the freedom of speech" part. Influencing someone to do something through your words is called speech.
- jakeydus 10mo agoIf the something in question is a crime though, then that's called a conspiracy and there are laws against that. The legal difference in this case is the overt act, where one participant takes a criminal action beyond speech. Conspiracy is hard to prove in court, but that doesn't mean that I can say whatever I want and be completely absolved just because the action was not taken by my own hand.