> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Reese
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:37 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Tasteless site
>
>
> At 08:27 PM 2/11/01 -0600, Christopher Susi wrote:
> >Now hold on, there's a HUGE difference here between what I
> said, and what
> >this case was about.
> >
> >My contention is that if a "rational" adult views/listens/reads
> the material
> >and believes that the author is advocating and encouraging the
> commision of
> >crime, then the author should be held partly liable should that crime be
> >commited. Lets look at some cases.
>
> No.
>
> If the reader buys into such exhortations and then goes on to commit acts
> which any mature adult knows, or should know, are illegal, that reader
> should be prosecuted for his actions.
And what happens when it's not a mature adult who isn't aware it is illegal. And what happens when the statement isn't "obviously satirical".
What about the teacher/student issue that recently took place. The teacher said "If you break into this site, you will get a reward." The student believed him, broke in, and was arrested. Here is a case where the teacher was being satirical (and some would argue any rational adult would see that it was satirical). However the student, not having the experience to question and check if the statement was true, naively went ahead and broke into the system as suggested by his teacher. Should the teacher be liable? Or was his comment protected under the fact that it was a joke (i.e. "artistic expression") which was mis-interpreted. Now if he followed up and said "I'm not serious - but some companies do and you should check before you go and break in somewhere" would have gone a long way.
Of course, some would argue the teacher should have known better given his audience. However is his audience really any different from that of BonsaiKitten? I'd bet 100,000 pre-teens have already viewed it. How many were unable to discern that it wasn't legit? You are making an assumption that only mature-adults are the people who are viewing the site.
Similarly, what if that was a presenter at Defcon. The person says "Oh you can go ahead and break into XYZ Corporation. They love that, because it improves their security. If you tell them how you did it they will give you a reward." Four hours later after a marathon session, Hacker X breaks in and gets arrested for extortion. Should that presenter have any culpability? 75% of the people realize that it's bogus, but the 15 year old socially-akward kid who'se still unable to discern truth from sarcasm thinks its wholly real.
I'm not unaware of what I am saying, but a little disclaimer and caution on the part of the speaker can go a long way. There is a big difference between writing a text book on explosives and writing a text file detailing how to blow up your school and actively encouraging people go ahead and do it. Hell even the old text file writers were smart enough to put in disclaimers.