[eugenekop]

Here are few scenarios. Which scenario do you think should involve criminal liability?

1. In a radio station a journalist says that he will give 1000$ to anyone who slaps some commonly hated politician.

2. An influential rabbi writes in his book that it is okay to kill Muslim children.

3. Someone pays a hit man to kill someone else.

4. Someone incites a potentially violent crowd into commiting pogroms in the area.

5. Same as 4, but a pogrom actually occurs.

6. Someone tells his wife that all blacks should be hanged (someone overhears it).

Thanks.

[Pants-of-dog]

Here are few scenarios. Which scenario do you think should involve criminal liability?

1. In a radio station a journalist says that he will give 1000$ to anyone who slaps some commonly hated politician.

I am not sure if I would handle this in a criminal court, or by a regulatory board, but some sort of censure should be enacted.

2. An influential rabbi writes in his book that it is okay to kill Muslim children.

No. People write stuff like this all the time, and many books written before the modern era already have statements like this in them.

3. Someone pays a hit man to kill someone else.

They are just as liable as the hitman.

4. Someone incites a potentially violent crowd into commiting pogroms in the area.

This is a grey area. If it can be clearly shown that he intended for people to actually commit violence, then he should be charged.

5. Same as 4, but a pogrom actually occurs.

They are just as liable as the pogrommers (is that a word?).

6. Someone tells his wife that all blacks should be hanged (someone overhears it).

Thanks.

No. We would end up arresting half of Alabama if this was the case.

[eugenekop]

I think that if it should be legal to tell your wife that all blacks should be hanged, it should also be legal to broadcast it on the television. There is no difference except in the amount of people who listened to this, and this difference cannot affect legality. If the action itself is legal, then this action should be legal both when one person is involved and many people.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think that if it should be legal to tell your wife that all blacks should be hanged, it should also be legal to broadcast it on the television. There is no difference except in the amount of people who listened to this, and this difference cannot affect legality. If the action itself is legal, then this action should be legal both when one person is involved and many people.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore the very powerful effect that TV has had on our society.

If you believe that the mass media has an ability to do things like make people think libertarianism is bad or that paying taxes is good, then you also have to admit that mass media also has the ability to make violent and racist people think that lynching black people is acceptable.

A man talking to his wife does not have that power.

[eugenekop]

^
Really? So your friends are not influential over you, only the media? I'm pretty sure your friends, your family and your acquaintances in general have more influence over you than the media. If all of them were racists, so would you most likely.

[Daktoria]

1. In a radio station a journalist says that he will give 1000$ to anyone who slaps some commonly hated politician.

Yes. It's a threat, provocation, and bounty. It doesn't matter how renowned the target is. Sarcasm is one of those fuzzy topics that's always left up for misinterpretation.

As a professional, especially in a commercial environment, you can't go around broadcasting things like that. Also, the key word is "will". He could say that he "wants" to give $1,000 to be emphatic instead. Willingness implies a unilateral contract offer.

2. An influential rabbi writes in his book that it is okay to kill Muslim children.

It really depends upon the justification involved in the writing. If the justification is an ad hominem attack, then yes. If it's a religious or metaphysical critique, then it depends on whether or not it's logically sound.

Emotional releases have to be reserved to the private, personal arena. Otherwise, people will be obligated to interpret what you're saying a certain way which imposes upon immature and disagreeable personalities.

3. Someone pays a hit man to kill someone else.

Yes.

4. Someone incites a potentially violent crowd into commiting pogroms in the area.

Incitement is kind of difficult to define, so you have to be careful here. Someone who's say gathering a rally just to express disagreement isn't inciting a crowd.

Practically speaking though, yes.

6. Someone tells his wife that all blacks should be hanged (someone overhears it).

No. This isn't the same as #1 because it's not professional, commercial, or a broadcast. It's private, personal conversation.

[grassroots1]

As far as I'm concerned, all but #6 should be able to be held liable.

That only makes sense if you completely ignore the very powerful effect that TV has had on our society.

If you believe that the mass media has an ability to do things like make people think libertarianism is bad or that paying taxes is good, then you also have to admit that mass media also has the ability to make violent and racist people think that lynching black people is acceptable.

A man talking to his wife does not have that power.

I agree with this 100%, eugene is underestimating the power of television.

Really? So your friends are not influential over you, only the media? I'm pretty sure your friends, your family and your acquaintances in general have more influence over you than the media. If all of them were racists, so would you most likely.

The question isn't who's influential to you, but whether a "listener" will react the same way towards a couple talking candidly to each other and a television statement that, theoretically, is held to a higher standard of honesty and credibility. Television is a powerful tool with the ability to generate consent on an issue without people even realizing it's happening. In many ways it lays the foundation for debate in our everyday lives. This is why it must be kept out of the hands of agenda-driven people.

[eugenekop]

If I tell my wife that all blacks should be hanged, she might very well be influenced by it because she respects me and my opinions. If I am also a popular radio host, and I say this on the radio, many people who respect me and my opinions will also be influenced by it. Conceptually there is no difference, only the numbers differ.

[grassroots1]

And the numbers are what's important. The listener to you and your wife's conversation doesn't give a crap about you because he sees your face and assumes you are some dumb hick. On the radio, we hear the voice, we hear the ideas, we idealize the man or the woman, and we are more inclined (for some reason) to accept their views as true or reasonable. Similar to reading a person's ideas in a book.

This is why we need to be careful with the radio and television.

[Daktoria]

No, there is a difference eugene.

Your wife trusts your influence in advance and in turn, she is trusted to help recognize and turn around your adverse beliefs.

In contrast, radio does not necessarily bear two-way trust because it's professional, commercial, and a broadcast. Someone who tunes into a radio station expects it to be refined, understands that it's paid in exchange for attention, and is not limited to certain channels.

For example, say I'm scanning the airwaves, tune into your station, and those are the first words I hear coming out of your mouth. Why couldn't I interpret them as a legitimate unilateral contract offer?

If you allow for this, then you allow for people to lie about all facts and intentions to each other.

In contrast, the personal and private conversation you have with your wife comes with an understanding that lying will not take place. If it does, it also comes with an understanding that you will help each other become truthful.

As a listener to a radio station, you are being entertained. Entertainment does not obligate you to call in and help the radio station out.

[Loba]

I guess the difference between "incitement to commite a crime" and "instigation" is clear.

Now, if certain action may considered to be incitement to commite a crime depends on the cirumstances (as criminal assessment of action cannot be "prefabricated").
I mean even speaking to your wife may considered to be not joke or light talking but incitement to commite a crime, if the cirumstances drive to that assessment. Ofc such circumstances are rare to occur. But same speakind on radio or tv is likely to be cosidered incitement to commite a crime (or insult publicly as well).

General talking, criminal assessment of action cannot be "prefabricated".

[danholo]

Really? So your friends are not influential over you, only the media? I'm pretty sure your friends, your family and your acquaintances in general have more influence over you than the media. If all of them were racists, so would you most likely.

Studies point out that more trust is definitely given to people surrounding you. The media in itself is quite powerless in some cases, while in some cases it has a monopoly.

[Eran]

The test of criminality should be whether a criminal act resulted as an intended and predictable result of the action.

1. Not an issue, provided the fine for slapping the politician exceeds $1000
2. Assuming a reader of the book actually kills Muslim children, I would initiate an investigation to determine whether that act was indeed an intended and predictable outcome of writing the book.
3. Clearly criminal
4. Not criminal if the pogrom didn't actually take place
5. Probably criminal
6. Probably not criminal (unless the wife takes action into her hands in a way the husband has intended and should have predicted)