A man who admits he ran down a Muslim family said he did so because he believed anti-Muslim conspiracies he found on fringe websites like Alex Jones’ Infowars.
People who legitimately have a disability that affects their cognition are at increased risk of being abused and scammed. They are also more likely to not be able to afford help, especially when they need it most. Exploiting people’s disabilities for personal gain is not only unethical, but arguably already illegal financial exploitation.
If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet, then… yes. They do hold some responsibility for the foreseeable risk that promoting outrage inspires outrage. At best, the liar believe their own lies, in which case they still need to show their math when claiming very specific things like “crime by Muslims is being systemically under-reported”. That’s not just an opinion like “i don’t trust Muslims” anymore, it’s a quantifiable and verifiable or falsifiable claim. There are multiple laws around fraud, libel, etc. that deal with these sorts of arguments daily.
Just like we condemn phone scammers for preying on grandparents with dementia, it is very much not ok to steal from people who are ill and need real genuine help.
The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined) and the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions in making that ruling? Sure, it’s not a clear cut crime and would need to be its own case. That’s also why I originally qualified it with “if it creates a disaster”. I’m not suggesting immediate conviction without trial(s).
I also think the media landscape is very different from 1969 when that ruling was made, and I disagree that calling for “revenge” against non-white people on the day of a specific rally is “abstract” like the ruling said, but that’s a topic for a different day.
It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn’t quite consider to be the same as defined - given we’re getting into the unnecessary details here. I’m not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.
I’m also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I’m not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones’ actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.
From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.
In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn’t even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction’s free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.
tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member’s context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court’s in full or that the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.
The same way we know who is going to commit what crime now. There are no guaranteed signs, just clues and maybe even historical patterns of behaviour. So ultimately, you don’t and can’t know for certain.
But you do assume a portion of the population (currently estimated at 15-20%) may have medical problems that affect their daily life and provide enough accessible public welfare systems that try to help people experiencing those problems, and you also foster a culture where getting help isn’t a declaration that you’re broken or weak. You also keep an eye out for your friends and family who might have been behaving unusually or… you know, radicalising. Normal collaborative society stuff.
None of us know when we might experience illness of any variety, including ones that affect our brains. Biology and chemistry often do weird shit, organic creatures have significant construction variation.
Society and community is a large part of how humans have prevented unexpected problems from killing humans unnecessarily. It is also how we should be preventing people from exploiting others.
Does shouting “Fire!” In a crowded place cause people to panic and stampede?
People who legitimately have a disability that affects their cognition are at increased risk of being abused and scammed. They are also more likely to not be able to afford help, especially when they need it most. Exploiting people’s disabilities for personal gain is not only unethical, but arguably already illegal financial exploitation.
If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet, then… yes. They do hold some responsibility for the foreseeable risk that promoting outrage inspires outrage. At best, the liar believe their own lies, in which case they still need to show their math when claiming very specific things like “crime by Muslims is being systemically under-reported”. That’s not just an opinion like “i don’t trust Muslims” anymore, it’s a quantifiable and verifiable or falsifiable claim. There are multiple laws around fraud, libel, etc. that deal with these sorts of arguments daily.
Just like we condemn phone scammers for preying on grandparents with dementia, it is very much not ok to steal from people who are ill and need real genuine help.
You’ll want to read the “legacy” section of that Wikipedia page.
The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined) and the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions in making that ruling? Sure, it’s not a clear cut crime and would need to be its own case. That’s also why I originally qualified it with “if it creates a disaster”. I’m not suggesting immediate conviction without trial(s).
I also think the media landscape is very different from 1969 when that ruling was made, and I disagree that calling for “revenge” against non-white people on the day of a specific rally is “abstract” like the ruling said, but that’s a topic for a different day.
It’s been defined in case-law.
From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.
It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn’t quite consider to be the same as defined - given we’re getting into the unnecessary details here. I’m not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.
I’m also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I’m not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones’ actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.
In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn’t even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction’s free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.
tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member’s context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court’s in full or that the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.
deleted by creator
The same way we know who is going to commit what crime now. There are no guaranteed signs, just clues and maybe even historical patterns of behaviour. So ultimately, you don’t and can’t know for certain.
But you do assume a portion of the population (currently estimated at 15-20%) may have medical problems that affect their daily life and provide enough accessible public welfare systems that try to help people experiencing those problems, and you also foster a culture where getting help isn’t a declaration that you’re broken or weak. You also keep an eye out for your friends and family who might have been behaving unusually or… you know, radicalising. Normal collaborative society stuff.
None of us know when we might experience illness of any variety, including ones that affect our brains. Biology and chemistry often do weird shit, organic creatures have significant construction variation.
Society and community is a large part of how humans have prevented unexpected problems from killing humans unnecessarily. It is also how we should be preventing people from exploiting others.