Inquiry on Chat Room Legal Issues

[William Mayton]

Culpability in the Paladin case was predicated on the publisher’s concession that it specifically intended to bring about the bad act (murder).  This intent is thought to be a 1st Amend-required element in aiding and abetting type cases (e.g., DOJ 1997 “Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information”) and is probably problematic in a bare presentation of bombmaking instructions.  Bill Mayton

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505 at yahoo.com>
To: Robert Bradley <rbradley at ilstu.edu>, CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Inquiry on Chat Room Legal Issues

As I understand it, the supreme court has never decided the issue. The closest analogue is the Paladin Enterprises case. Paladin had published two books that were basically technical manuals for hit men who were functioning as independent contractors for hire. One book showed how to make and dispose of a silencer. Another was actually titled as "a technical manual" for hit men. The 4th circuit allowed a wrongful death action to be brought against the publisher (the killer of the victim had read the books). The Supreme Court never took the case.
   
  Here is what I believe to be an accurate statement of the law from the case: "The law is now well established that the First Amendment, and Brandenburg's "imminence" requirement in particular, generally poses little obstacle to the punishment of speech that constitutes criminal aiding and abetting, because culpability in such cases is premised, not on defendants' advocacy of criminal conduct, but on defendants' successful efforts to assist others by detailing to them the means of accomplishing the crimes."
   
  In short, if showing someone how to make a bomb constitutes aiding and abetting, free speech should no more protect that as it would protecting language that constitutes an assault. Of course, mere advocacy of the idea or desirability of death, destruction, terrorism -- or even advocating that someone kill the president or whomever -- should be protected under Brandenburg.
   
             

Robert Bradley <rbradley at ilstu.edu> wrote:
  Hello:

A couple of questions raised by a student that I would appreciate getting 
responses to from list members. Is it permissible to discuss bomb making 
techniques in a chat room along as advocacy of crime is not part of the 
discussion? [are there any other conditions that would impact the legality 
of the discussion?] Is it permissible for the government to monitor those 
discussions?

Bob

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.



Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Penn State University
			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.