Discussion»Questions»Current Events and News» Do you think conspiracy theorists whose asinine claims provoke people to commit crimes should be held accountable legally?
I think it depends on how much the theorist directly supported the criminal act.
It’s one thing to tell others that the Saracens (or whoever) are wicked and should be killed off, but quite another to take up a sword and cut them down because you agree.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at June 2, 2018 9:52 AM MDT
I'm not sure about that. I'm no libertarian, and I think there should be limits on the 1st amendment. Saying that a group is evil is one thing. I think that saying any group of people should be killed off is at least as dangerous as yelling "fire".
It's going to be a good day when Alex Jones is forced to pay millions to the Sandy Hook families and the random people he misidentifies and defames as being school shooters and deep state "shills", human traffickers, etc. If there's a way to lock him up, even better.
I agree hate speech is a slippery slope, but where does it become unequivocally criminal?
In the case you cite, did the conspiracists recruit individuals or provide direct aid to the crime?
Decades ago, a man here in the US committed a series of gruesome murders, claiming his acts were influenced by the AC/DC song, “Night Prowler”. Of course the Aussie band members had no part in the murders, but there were some misled do-gooders who sought to indict the band for conspiracy to murder. (Nothing came of it)
Some whackos are just awaiting the right push.
This post was edited by Don Barzini at June 3, 2018 4:40 AM MDT
I'd say that the crimes in question with all of the Alex Jones cases are defamation/slander/libel, which are usually civil crimes. I know that he made a public apology for the lies that he spread about an alleged Hillary Clinton led human-trafficking ring in the pizzeria, which led one of his deranged followers to shoot up the place. Personally, I think maybe a criminal case could have been made against him in that matter, but the shooter got a plea agreement.
I remember a case involving Judas Priest, but hadn't heard about the AC/DC case. I've just googled and I have to laugh at the idea of AC/DC being associated with the infamous Richard Ramirez/Night Stalker. I do agree that some people don't need much of a push.
This post was edited by SavvyAnsley at June 2, 2018 9:14 PM MDT
Alex Jones doesnt do that. His broadcast stems from hard research and reliable sources. But to answer this question I think they should. Especially media sourses like CNN, CNBC who constantly spew lies and news based on nothing bUt opinion.
So, you believe that Sandy Hook never happened, that the children who died never existed and their parents are paid "crisis actors"? You believe that there was a sex trafficking ring in a pizzeria run by Hillary Clinton, even though Jones has since apologized to the owner or Comet Ping Pong Pizza? You believe that it's acceptable for Jones to have posted a picture of a young man who had never even been to Florida and identify him as the Parkland shooter?
If you honestly believe the complete garbage Jones spews, here's a link that might be able to help you.
It would never happen, or is unlikely but yea why not. I do find the whole conspiracy thing weird -
What I find oddest is that usually, while the idea behind it is compelling to a lot of people; e.g Elvis isn't dead, Princess Di was killed by someone intentionally, the Illuminati idea that the Queen is all powerful and runs the world etc.. there is NO evidence to support it.. Usually, just a bunch of disconnected coincidences that are circumstantial at best and manufactured more often than not.
The ones you mention are mostly just entertaining. The ones spread by Alex Jones and Info Wars have provoked people to commit crimes against innocent people, have added enormous injury to grieving parents, have ruined the reputations of people who did NOTHING.
Some people just want anarchy without actually thinking the damage anarchy does. Also, not thinking that those same people will be in the middle of it. They will suffer just like the rest of us and their short-sightedness is astounding.
Deliberately spreading a false rumour that is likely to make someone the target of violence should not be protected speech.
Legislating against it would however be problematic as it would raise a number of awkward questions - for instance, how we define "deliberate", how you would prove that it wasn't a mistake made in good faith, whether it would hamper legitimate investigative journalism, etc.
Don Barzini 