Kinda already exists for large figures. John Oliver has insurance in case he gets sued, and he did, by Bob Murray who was doing it just to silence opposition.

It's not 'my position'. I'm just repeating the law. All Dalia Dippolito did was speak. The personal responsibility of the person she spoke to (the would-be assassin) led him to abstain from the killing. Yet, his personal responsibility had no bearing on her crime.

I think harassment is the offense, and that is what people are responsible/liable for; however, I don't think people should then be liable for the suicide.

I don't think people should be liable for their speech in the context we're talking about, both criminally and civilly. What I'm confused about is that you seem to support criminal liability for speech but oppose civil liability.

Laws are merely positions.

This is an incredible take. I'll have to think on this. I mean, if you tell me during a suggestible moment that I should kill myself and I do, when I wouldn't have if you'd said nothing, aren't you at least in part responsible for my death?

The courts say you are. The precedent is set. I tend to just nod to the law. Your assertion seems to be that the law is wrong. Often times it is, so I'm open to that as well.

So... No civil OR criminal consequence even if clear incitement is at issue, yet prolonged harrassment should be actionable?

I dunno, I need more clarification. I'm maybe overthinking things here.



You're talking about the form of insurance that most news anchors have, which goes to bat for them if they're sued for libel/slander, right? I think that's not what I'm talking about. Pretty sure.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 2 2021 01:45am

For me, I think there's a difference between ethical and legal liability. Would it be ethical for me to do that? No. However, I think it's dangerous precedent to find me legally liable or otherwise in-part responsible though.

I'm curious what you think: Many school shooters reported being bullied, harassed, and made fun of by their peers and have expressed in their manifestos that those experiences were in-part a motivation for their decision to shoot up the school. Should the peers who harassed the shooter be held liable (either criminally or civilly) for the deaths of their other peers?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Feb 2 2021 01:48am

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm pro capital punishment and pro personal responsibility. I think school shooters are weak kneed sissies who should face the gas chamber (assuming they aren't gunned down by responding police). They were bullied? Cry me a fucking river. Literally everyone, INCLUDING the popular girl that EVERYONE wants to fuck is bullied. Social interaction is hard, half of the point of school is to learn how to deal with it.

That being said, this topic is, again, NOT about criminality. Please reread the original topic post. This is about words you don't like, not incitement. So again, if I say, "Trump wasn't that bad" and you suffer some mental breakdown because I said TEH ORANGE WORD!!!! should I have to pay you for your mental distress? And if so, if that's the low bar we have set, should liability insurance for speech not be required for anyone who wishes to speak in public?

I just view these cases as the actual legal precedent and antecedents that are actually leading to the potential future you're asking about in the OP, and so I find them to be personally relevant. I'm still just confused about how you feel less strongly about personal responsibility for criminal liability/incitement and then more strongly when it's about civil liability/uncomfortable speech.

To your hypothetical, no, I don't think you should be responsible or held liable for my mental distress.

How would you answer your other hypothetical. If I tell you to kill yourself while you're drunk, and you do it, you genuinely think I should be held liable for that? I'm not asking what the current law says about it.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Feb 2 2021 02:00am

Geez dude, you're making me think a lot here over a trollish (if prophetic) topic.

How exactly do I feel more strongly about uncomfortable speech than I do criminal liability? I've already said I AGREE with the idea that you're criminally liable if your words or actions lead to someone's death. I said pretty straightforward in the topic post that I think the idea that you need to insure speech is fucking stupid, and I stand by that.

"Hate speech" laws and fines and lawsuits have become the new norm, if you approach this subject from a global perspective. The US is semi-unique in our first amendment approach. However, with the out of office impeachment trial of a non-sitting President that actively told rioters to "stop and go home" I find that it's becoming more and more relevant.

What has he done? Well, he said he was fraudulently shafted. Okay, I'm not concerned about the factuality or specifics. He's still a US citizen and has the right to his opinion and the expression thereof. So what's with the trial? But apparently this caused people to "nearly be murdered" by a bunch of... Unarmed protestors who uh... Um... Didn't hurt anybody who wasn't a cop? I'm confused.

Meanwhile, people get fined for teaching a dog to salute, other people get banned from entire nations for saying there's a migrant problem, and yet others get entire contracts yanked without even the benefit of administrative access to backup their source code because... Speech. So, at what point is speech so highly contentious simply by being speech that you need to have insurance to speak, because literally everything is now harmful?



If I'm that much of a pussy I deserved to die and good god damned riddance.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 2 2021 02:09am

I think it may simply be easier for me to say that I think personal responsibility trumps everything in this discussion for me, and that I don't believe people should be held liable in any form for their speech and that Person A's behavior is their responsibility. That doesn't mean that speech is free from consequences, so I feel that people getting banned, fined, etc. is very different. Those consequences should be commensurate with the speech that is being made, but that consequences that extend to holding one liable for the behaviors of others is unethical imo.