How far does legal speech go?

[WVUFAN]

The Situation:

I took this from another site, and it was a great question, I thought I'd bring it here for discussion:


Person A wants person B to die. Person B is in a relationship with person C and is having an affair with person D. Person A knows about the affair and believes that person C will kill person B if they find out. Person A brings proof of the affair to person C. Person C kills persons B and D.

Edit 1: Person A is not asking Person C to commit a violent act, or suggesting that they do so. They are informing person C of the affair in the hope that Person B will be killed.

The Discussion:

Should person A be punished for their actions? Why and what is an appropriate punishment/factors that affect an appropriate punishment? This thread is not intended to discuss punishments/reasoning for persons B, C, or D, only for person A.

[bigmike75]

I'll keep it simple. No. Telling someone something that will piss them off doesn't make you responsible for their actions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Legally? I don't see much in the way of grounds to charge A.

They did not have prior knowledge of what C would do. A hope perhaps but nothing substantial by way of proof. Not even sure you could say A had reasonable belief (is it ever reasonable to assume X would kill Y in circumstance Z, absent any threat/statements to the contrary?)

I see nothing in your description to indicate conspiracy or anything of that nature.

I would think A could be fairly accused of being a manipulative human being, but that's not criminal as I see this scenario. The only punishment I can figure might be a bad reputation.

[Marc Vaughan]

If it could be proved there was malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt AND the person involved was easily influenced then they should be punished imho.

(in the same way I've punished my older children for encouraging their younger siblings to do things they knew would get them in trouble in the past ....)

However the proving of things would be highly problematic in comparison to getting a child to confess and obviously most people art competant individuals and should be in control of their own actions.

A similar instance to this and how its handled within society is probably the basis of whether 'entrapment' is allowed within the police force - ie. can you encourage someone to commit a crime and then convict him when he says he'll do it? (this varies hugely depending on the country involved).

PS - I believe there is prior judgement on this sort of thing within the UK where someone has manipulated someone who was mentally restricted into murdering someone; I seem to vaguely recall a 'made for TV' film about it ages back.

[Sun Tzu]

Is anyone else morbidly curious about the inspiration of this question?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is anyone else morbidly curious about the inspiration of this question?

I'm guessing someone is studying law or interested in such things myself ... sounds like a 'test' question.

[Buccaneer]

When people say "Free Speech", they usually base it on the 1st Amendment which starts off "Congress shall make no law..." The Courts have expanded upon that but the basis should still be the same.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is anyone else morbidly curious about the inspiration of this question?

Well, it's not my question but one of another site. I think it's an analogy of the current issues with the video and the riots in the Middle East, ie Person A is the video-makers, Person B is the victims of the riots and Person C is the rioters. S/he is just posting it this way to avoid getting in trouble with the mods.

[JPhillips]

No.

But that doesn't mean person A isn't an asshole.

[WVUFAN]

If anyone is curious, here's the original thread:

Worldly Talk - Myth-Weavers

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is anyone else morbidly curious about the inspiration of this question?

Like my father told me once while cleaning the chainsaw... the less you know, the better

[molson]

The best way to answer these questions is to look to the law itself. We can have our own moral judgments, and discuss whether someone "should" be punished, but at the end of the day, in this country, the law controls (well, a jury can do what they want, but IN THEORY in this country, the law controls).

To be guilty of a crime in, let's say, Idaho, you have to be either a principal, or an accessory. Accessories are people who are involved "after the fact", so in this fact pattern, Person A would have to be a principal to be charged. Idaho statutorily defines a principal (for any crime) as:

"All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the intoxication of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed."

If we broke this out phrase by phrase there's about 6 different ways there to be a principal:

-"directly commit the act." (NO)
-"aid and abet in its commission" (NO, in light of the phrases that follow, I believe this refers to more direct aiding and abetting - i.e., helping someone to commit a crime).
-"advised and encouraged its commission." (NO. The next phrase in the statute says, "or, not being present", so this phrase only covers advice and and encouragement during the actual commission of the crime.)
-"not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission" (Hmm. Is it possible to indirectly "encourage" someone? To tell them something with the specific intent that they'll act a certain way in response? Does that fall under the plain meaning of encouragement? I think you could make that argument. If I was the prosecutor I'd research the history of this statute, see where those words came form, see if any courts have have held either way. MAYBE. But I'm leaning yes. My 30-second research reveals that under these types of statutes, the encouragement can be by "act or words". If the encouragement can be by act, then it doesn't have to be direct verbal encouragement to do something specific. The tricky part would be proving it, but if someone performed an act, or said words, with the purpose of getting someone to commit a crime, I think you might have a crime under this phrase.
-"by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the intoxication of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime". (NO, but I think this phrase strongly supports guilt under the previous phrase. If you can be a principal merely by getting someone boozed up (if the state can prove you got them boozed up for the purpose of getting them to commit a crime), then I think you can make the argument that, under the previous phrase, person A can be a principal by getting someone riled up about the affair (if, again, the state can prove person A riled up the killer FOR THE PURPOSE of getting them to commit murder).
-"by threats, menaces, command or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed." (NO, but here, you have a specific phrase that appears to contemplate more direct coercion to commit a crime - again strengthening the argument that the phrase earlier can refer to indirect encouragement, otherwise that previous phrase would be redundant, I think.).

Without more research, I see dueling briefs and argument, from which a judge could go either way.

Edit: This would all only apply to the murder of person B. Person A didn't intend for D to die, so I don't think there could be any charges there, UNLESS person A did something illegal in sharing the affair info. I don't think he did, but if you commit even a misdemeanor, and someone's death results, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, even if you didn't intend for anyone to die. Assuming person A "bringing the proof" of the affair was done legally, this wouldn't be a problem, but if there was an illegal wiretapping or something, it could get interesting.

[Solecismic]

I find it troubling and astonishing that the events of the last 11 years have us questioning our very freedom.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

To be guilty of a crime in, let's say, Idaho, you have to be either a principal, or an accessory. Accessories are people who are involved "after the fact", so in this fact pattern, Person A would have to be a principal to be charged. Idaho statutorily defines a principal (for any crime) as:

Does Idaho not have a 'yelling fire in a theatre' option as most states/countries do I believe? ... ie. doing something which the instigator knows which cause damage/chaos/injury even if indirectly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Does Idaho not have a 'yelling fire in a theatre' option as most states/countries do I believe? ... ie. doing something which the instigator knows which cause damage/chaos/injury even if indirectly.

Not specifically, but I believe if someone yelled fire in a theater in Idaho, he'd be charged with disturbing the peace:

"18-6409. Disturbing the peace. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor"

That's kind of an all-purpose misdemeanor that applies to assholes causing problems (which allows up to a year in jail), and of course, there'd be no valid defense that the speech was protected by the 1st amendment. If someone were killed in the resulting stampede, the guy could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, since he'd be committing a crime that resulted in death, and the death, while not intended, wasn't entirely unforeseeable. And of course, he'd be civilly liable for any injuries he caused.

[DougW]

As this chart by Researchers Incorporated clearly shows .. it goes pretty far.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Does Idaho not have a 'yelling fire in a theatre' option as most states/countries do I believe? ... ie. doing something which the instigator knows which cause damage/chaos/injury even if indirectly.

That example was given by the Court during a time when fires in theaters were a serious problem, seen or unseen. When you heard "Fire!," you ran for the exit, and people would be hurt getting out.

The Court held that in this case, the speech could be consider an action. A direct command to people to run for their lives.

Since then, the Court has steadily refined this idea, under the concept of "narrowly tailoring" the law to fit what they consider an acceptable infringement of speech. They have even held that a generic call to violence is protected speech, as long as it is not directed at an individual. I.E., you can tell someone to "kill all the so-and-sos," but you cannot tell someone to "kill Bob Johnson."

Even the knowledge that there are people out there who might be so offended by your speech that they, half a world away, start rioting in the streets if they are directed to do so by their government or by their church or by a militia group isn't even close to the standard set by the Court for infringing on speech.

The Court is crystal clear that if you commit a violent act against someone, you bear that responsibility.

If we restrict speech to that which doesn't seriously offend anyone, who knows what won't be allowed tomorrow? Our country was founded by people who understood, first-hand, what repression meant, and they refused to be bullied. We cannot be bullied by these religious leaders who can command thousands in the streets to kill over a video 99.9% of them will never even see. Let's not forget the real enemy here.

[DanGarion]

Throw the actual act of cheating out. How does that change everything?

[EagleFan]

I find it hard to believe and quite troubling that idiots still exist in this world that would kill someone over a freaking movie clip. Those mental midgets do not deserve to breath our air.

[Shepp]

The foundation for making a case against person"A" would be intent. The way the questions is phrased makes it sound like person "A" is reasonably sure of not certain that person "C" will react violently to this information. So when person "A" tells person "C" of this affair his is doing it with the intention of violence coming to person "B" and "D".

The problem you run into is being able to prove the intent in court. Unless person "A" confesses, had told his plas to someone, or there is some sort of physical evidence then you will have a hard time proving it. So even if person "A" is charged the chances of conviction are very low.

[Ryan S]

I can't see how person A has done anything wrong. Whether he wants person B dead or not is irrelevant if he has told person C the truth.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That example was given by the Court during a time when fires in theaters were a serious problem, seen or unseen. When you heard "Fire!," you ran for the exit, and people would be hurt getting out.

The Court held that in this case, the speech could be consider an action. A direct command to people to run for their lives.

Since then, the Court has steadily refined this idea, under the concept of "narrowly tailoring" the law to fit what they consider an acceptable infringement of speech. They have even held that a generic call to violence is protected speech, as long as it is not directed at an individual. I.E., you can tell someone to "kill all the so-and-sos," but you cannot tell someone to "kill Bob Johnson."

Even the knowledge that there are people out there who might be so offended by your speech that they, half a world away, start rioting in the streets if they are directed to do so by their government or by their church or by a militia group isn't even close to the standard set by the Court for infringing on speech.

The Court is crystal clear that if you commit a violent act against someone, you bear that responsibility.

If we restrict speech to that which doesn't seriously offend anyone, who knows what won't be allowed tomorrow? Our country was founded by people who understood, first-hand, what repression meant, and they refused to be bullied. We cannot be bullied by these religious leaders who can command thousands in the streets to kill over a video 99.9% of them will never even see. Let's not forget the real enemy here.

Don't get me wrong - i agree totally with that stance, my reference was to the original example given which was against a specific individual trying to incide a specific persons death ...

[TroyF]

Jim,

I don't think the last 11 years are causing this line of thinking. I think everyone is essentially in agreement here. With the information we have, there is no real way to charge person A with a crime, even if he is a scumbag.

I do think further information could be used though. For example, what if person B was a female, person C was a man who had been convicted of a violent crime in the past. If person A clearly knew this and investigators could prove the death threats against person B. . . there might be a case.

still incredibly difficult to prove, but it might be there.

All of that said, from a moral perspective, if I'm the father of person B and I find out this information, person A better not get caught alone at night. It would be worth an assault charge.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DougW

As this chart by Researchers Incorporated clearly shows .. it goes pretty far.

This deserves more love.