White Supremacist Killer Testifies He Was Radicalized by Conspiratorial Content Like Infowars
White Supremacist Killer Testifies He Was Radicalized by Conspiratorial Content Like Infowars
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
On the day of the killings, Veltman denied that he went out on the day with the intention of conducting murders despite the fact he had written a manifesto, put on a military helmet, a bulletproof vest, and a white shirt with a cross on it that was a reference to an online meme about crusaders killing Muslims.
Dude is just trying to save his skin and pass the blame for what he did elsewhere.
You're right, but the blame does lie with multiple people too. Yeah, his only chance of saving his skin is if other's responsibility somehow diminishes his own culpability, but he will soon find out this is not a zero-sum game.
But shouting "fire!" In a crowded theater isn't free speech and will get you a jail sentence if it creates a disaster. Infowars (and Alex Jones specifically), and other organisations (they identify libertarian and mainstream conservative content plus youtube algorithm) also need to be held to account for inflammatory speech that encourages violence; provided that it can be demonstrated that they're pushing dangerous misinformation. Especially if they are making money doing it.
I won't hold my breath waiting to see that happen though.
Permanently Deleted
But falsely shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater isn’t free speech if it creates a disaster and/or summons emergency services in various US jurisdictions
FTFYFMFY
My point was more around the idea that you are/can be held responsible for the things you say rather than exact implementation requirements though.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
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.
The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined)
It's been defined in case-law.
If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet
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’s been defined in case-law.
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.
Permanently Deleted
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.
It's called stochastic terrorism.
Fault isn't binary.
Is a con-man really at fault if he is able to trick people into giving him money?
He didn't intend to do any murdering, he just was fully prepared just in case the opportunity for some murdering came up. You know how one might pack a few snacks just in case they get peckish between meals.
Permanently Deleted
denied that he went out on the day with the intention of conducting murders
What did he expect, that they would respawn?
I'm pretty sure you can't claim a crime of passion if you put on a bulletproof vest, it's not exactly normal attire even for NRA idiots.