NationStates Jolt Archive

So my dad and I got into this debate concerning the nut case that is currently holding several people hostage in the Hillary Campaign office. My dad argued that if this guy listened to Rush Limbaugh (and other political radio show) that Rush Limbaugh should be held responsible because he may have said that "we must stop Hillary Clinton, we can't let her win." (not exact Limbaugh quotes). However, I argued that a person who is in broadcasting can't account for every nut case that's going to listen to their radio program and act on what they say. I mean Rush Limbaugh may have said that we must stop his campaign, but he never said "at any cost", and never threaten Hillary directly.

I think if you do tell a group of people to go harm someone or to damage property, then you should be held responsible because you specifically told them to go do it. But to be held responsible for what you say on a political radio show, where you talk *gasp* politics is insane. If you have to account for every nut case that may listen to your show and modify your show so that the nut case won't go out and do something like this, then you're going to talk about.....corn, or your favorite color.

So, should media people be responsible for what they say when something like this happens?

Pah! Responsibility is overrated tripe. :)

Seriously, unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a direct message in the media that instructed people to do something that would break the law and did cause harm, why should the media be responsible for someone else's actions? People have free will. There is no one holding a gun to humanity's collective head, some situations exempt of course, telling them to do something. No one is forcing someone to act upon what they hear in the media.

This is an old argument. I feel that if you do something, it's your responsibility, I don't care where you got the idea. Rush Limbaugh did not force these people to do anything, they did it all by themselves. I think Limbaugh is pretty stupid, but he's not responsible for the actions of the fools who listen to him - unless he actually paid them to do it.

I have real issues with the "I'm too stupid to think for myself" defense.

But Rush clearly isn't really talking to him because Rush Limbaugh talks only to me. If anyone would get a directive from the Supreme One, it would be me.

I think you can tell someone to go hurt someone and damage property, and you should still not be held responsible.

People are responsible for their own actions.

The law already has an answer to this, and it's a pretty good one.

If a reasonable person could predict what would occur as a result of your actions you are responsible if it does so occur. It's pretty simple, really.

EDIT: this is of course for crimes iwth a mens rea of negligence. Recklesness is more complicated

If a reasonable person could predict what would occur as a result of your actions you are responsible if it does so occur. It's pretty simple, really.

Can you give an example of above?

Maybe it should depend on weather or not the person preaches REAL violence.
Like a KKK leader or a Communist.

Can you give an example of above?

sure, ok. Let's say you're 15 years old, in highschool. I know that you are constantly bullied, you are failing out of school, and your parents are going through a divorce. I know all of this, and I also know that, as a result, you are suicidally depressed. I then say to you the following:

"hey, I know all these things are really rough for you. I hear you are failing school, sucks, I mean, you know how hard it is without a highschool degree, people without degrees have a really hard time finding jobs, most of them end up homeless, it's a big problem.

Oh, sorry about your family. I hear your parents are getting divorced. You know, I heard that children are the leading cause of divorces. I wonder, if your parents didn't have a child ot worry about, whether they'd get a divorced. It's so hard for a kid to know they are probably the reason his parents are unhappy, and they'd probably be happier without him.

Also, I know how bullies can be, it's really horrible that there's nothing at all you can do and they'll probably just keep picking on you and picking on you. People say ot stand up to bullies, but that just makes it worse, there's really nothing you can do. But you know, I wonder sometimes, if someone they picked on ended up dead..I bet those bullies would feel really guilty, they'd hate themselves forever. That would be some great revenge huh?

Oh well, I have to get going, I'm just going to leave this bottle of sleeping pills here, I'll be back for it later"

And, surprise surprise, you kill yourself. Yes, you killed yourself, I did nothing physical to kill you. But I did feed off your depression, put suicidal thoughts into your head when I knew you were vulnerable, exploited your emotional frailty, and provided the means to kill yourself. Could a reasonable person forsee what would happen as a result of my actions? Probably.

Should I, as a result, be liable to some extent for your death? Most likely..

Maybe it should depend on weather or not the person preaches REAL violence.
Like a KKK leader or a Communist.

Why are you carrying on this charade after totally cocking it up in the Hillary Clinton thread? Creating a hopeless right winger to argue with is just so redundant EA.