Manual on How to Molest Children Is Legal, Cops Say

[lawbuff]

It is freedom of speech.

Sometimes the 1st AM and criminal activity cross hairs. This type of publication I believe would be classified as a "thought crime" and generally protected, per the US SC.

However, I believe if someone uses this manual to hurt a child, then the author could be found complicit. I'm sure a lawyer would know.

I am not a lawyer, but even the inchoate offenses, complicity, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, require a mens rea, culpable mental state, unless the state would classify it as a strict liability offense. Sometimes even Prosecutors have a hard time deciphering the law.

Criminally charging a person may be a stretch?? I foresee a civil complaint more in a Joint Tort-Feasor theory.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Im kind of conflicted on this one. I can clearly see why some people would believe that the states interest in protecting children should outweigh the right to make and disseminate such material. However, its not a crime just to think something, no actual crime is being commited, and there are free speech protections. Is it morally reprehensible? yes. Criminal? no.

 

[Father Time]

I'm not surprised, this guy's books are legal.

Ragnar Benson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Time]

It is freedom of speech. However, I believe if someone uses this manual to hurt a child, then the author could be found complicit. I'm sure a lawyer would know.

Unfortunately they haven't found the author yet. I imagine we will see him Dateline if and when they do. Perverted Justice will know how to catch this creep.

nope, manufacturers of items aren't responsible for how people use them

Really? Big Tobacco would tell you that the USG disagrees.

There's a difference between an item that harms it's users and books like these.

 

[Steerpike]

There's a difference between an item that harms it's users and books like these.

But as long as the end users are informed of the harms, the company shouldn't be liable. I think where tobacco should be held accountable is putting additives into the product without telling consumers. Or actively deceiving people about safety. If those things happen there is no informed consent.

But if a person knowingly smokes, aware of the harms that is causes, there's no reason to hold the tobacco companies liable for the harms.

 

[Father Time]

There's a difference between an item that harms it's users and books like these.

But as long as the end users are informed of the harms, the company shouldn't be liable. I think where tobacco should be held accountable is putting additives into the product without telling consumers. Or actively deceiving people about safety. If those things happen there is no informed consent.

But if a person knowingly smokes, aware of the harms that is causes, there's no reason to hold the tobacco companies liable for the harms.

I agree, I'm just saying the two situations aren't the same.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree, I'm just saying the two situations aren't the same.

Got ya. I agree with that.