Welcome to Slashdot Perl Microsoft KDE The Almighty Buck Red Hat Software
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
4/8
apache
4/11 (10)
askslashdot
1/27
awards
4/8
books
4/9
bsd
4/11 (3)
features
4/11
interviews
1/9
radio
4/11 (7)
science
4/11 (4)
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'"Nuremberg Files" Decision Overturned' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 792 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
This is about responsibilty. (Score:4, Troll)
by Urban Existentialist (urban_existentialist@yahoo.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:35PM EST (#18)
(User #307726 Info) http://www.geocities.com/urban_existentialist/index.htm
There is a central question here. Where does the responsibility lie? If a film portrays a violent act, and someone who watches that film then goes and commits that act in real life, who is responsible?

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Perhaps in some instances it is. The general public is, well, stupid and impressionable. European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Should America foillow this lead? I think that if they can demonstrate the innocence of the defendant and think this is reasonable as the Europeans do, then yes. This is an undecided question though.

You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<cheers?? by prelelat (Score:3) | Only in the USA. by SpanishInquisition (Score:1) >>
Moderation Totals:Troll=2, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=8.
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by bstadil (bjorn@stadilGoodIdeaToRemoveThis.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:38PM EST (#33)
(User #7110 Info) http://www.stadil.com/
You wrote "The general public is, well, stupid and impressionable. European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries" The fact that we do not have 1.2 guns for every citizen like the US might have something to do with it as well.

... Check  Open Source Client Side Web Windowing.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by whizzird on Wednesday March 28, @04:57PM EST (#121)
    (User #129373 Info)
    The US might have a lot of guns, but the reason we have more gun violence is that only the criminals carry guns. Look at Switzerland, every male over 18 is required by law to have an assault rifle in the house, and they have a really low crime rate. Many Swiss carry guns with them. In the US it's really rare. I live in one of the US States with a very liberal concealed carry law, but don't know anyone who carries a gun. Americans are violent because very few of us were brought up well, and because so many Americans live in poverty (thanks to the welfare system), and have broken homes.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
      by Bob McCown on Wednesday March 28, @06:01PM EST (#349)
      (User #8411 Info)
      Look at Switzerland, every male over 18 is required by law to have an assault rifle in the house, and they have a really low crime rate

      Do you have any statistics to back this claim up, or even a place that will tell me if the gun ownership is really a law? This smacks of an Urban Legend.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
        by IronChef on Wednesday March 28, @06:20PM EST (#384)
        (User #164482 Info) http://wrongcrowd.com/
        It's no myth. Here's one link. You can easily find others if you look.

        The fact is, guns aside, America just has a more violent culture than most other industrialized nations. Guns don't make people into killers, and it is possible to have a society where there are lots of guns and little crime. America just isn't that place for some reason -- we should try to find out why.

        ---- No sig, no horse, no mustache.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
          by Bob McCown on Wednesday March 28, @06:52PM EST (#441)
          (User #8411 Info)
          Yea, I did a bit of digging, and found out a few interesting facts. Yes, they are required by law to own a gun, and 75 rounds of issued ammunition. Its checked every year. BUT, even given that law, 18% of Swiss households have a gun in them, compared to 29%. Odd...
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
            by onepoint (giveittome@artistcorner.tv) on Wednesday March 28, @07:25PM EST (#480)
            (User #301486 Info) http://artistcorner.tv
            Also, back in the 30' and 40', your Swiss parent would take you out to learn how to shoot your gun. The Swiss were know to be some of the best sharp shooters in the world at that time. Most German generals during WWII were not very keen on taking on the Swiss because they felt that the death tool was going to be to high and would lower moral.

            The Swiss were expert marksmen and could hit moving targets at distances greater than 100 meters and the children were taught the same skills.

            It was understood that the Swiss would kill 5 to 7 german personel before the troops would get into position. ( an if I was swiss I would make sure that my first kill would be an officer )

            ONEPOINT

            spambait e-mail
            my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
            please help me make it better
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, @07:52AM EST (#629)
              > Most German generals during WWII were not very keen on taking on the Swiss because they felt that the death tool was going to be to high and would lower moral

              Interesting, but the truth was that they were not keen of taking on a friend contry that hold most of the Nazi's assets.

              Cheers,

              --fred

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
              by Richy_T (slashdot@perihelion.demon.co.uk) on Thursday March 29, @11:41AM EST (#681)
              (User #111409 Info) http://www.nashvillegazette.com
              And, despite the films implied, was also quite happy to send back fleeing escapees and Jews.

              Rich
              Sig: Hey, how come the sigs suddenly shrank?

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
              by onepoint (giveittome@artistcorner.tv) on Friday March 30, @10:54AM EST (#757)
              (User #301486 Info) http://artistcorner.tv
              The topic of money trasaction between the Swiss and other countries is well documented. The Swiss held regular meeting inwhich the Nazi and USA would establish the value of gold to respect to their currency. The meeting were held monthly all during the war.

              It was simular to OPEC's meetings that happen when Iraq and Iran were at war. Oil outputs were established even thou those 2 parties were at war.

              Nazi's only moved there assets to the Swiss Banks in the later years of the war... 1943 and onwards. That was a move to protect what little funds they could try to keep after their defeat.

              ONEPOINT

              spambait e-mail
              my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
              please help me make it better
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @06:17PM EST (#377)
      The original post got at something that people now tend to believe without even thinking about it: any particular person is a schizophrenic, so divorced from reality that what is presented as entertainment is viewed as a workshop or how-to. The fact that people can and do blame everyone and everything else for their own mistakes or misjudgements is the heart of the matter.

      Culpability should reside ultimately with the perpetrator, unless the perpetrator--by law--is incompetent (ie crazy, a minor, etc.) and then the person who has legal custody should be held accountable. Simple as that. There are no mitigating factors.

      So, by this logic, I agree totally with the appeals court.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @10:56PM EST (#568)
    The fact that we do not have 1.2 guns for every citizen like the US might have something to do with it as well.
    Yep - everybody knows that guns leap from their locked cabinets, thrust themselves into the nearest person's arms and start firing themselves.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, @03:24AM EST (#606)
      Well, dumbass, you try killing 20 people in one minute with a fuckin knife whydoncha. You try killing someone at 30 m with a fucking knife (shit, 10 m, 5 m even)

      Wait. Are you a citizen of the good ole you esse of aye? (i hope not, but if you are), jesus. you're so fuckin' backwards. abortions for chrissake, but let's not ignore the other side (fundies suck hairy monkey cojones) or other backwards features like fuckin fahrenheit this and that, imperial this and that, and your goddamn accents. geez.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, @06:16PM EST (#724)
    The fact that we do not have 1.2 guns for every citizen like the US might have something to do with it as well.

    Or, perhaps, the fact that you have a hundredth as many niggers. Unfortunately, this is changing. If it weren't so fucking sad, I'd be laughing at you fucking eurotrash. Have fun in 20 years, when Europe is overrun with immigrants.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by epicurus (epicurus at wilter dot com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:39PM EST (#36)
(User #252619 Info)
umm, I think you read the decision backwards...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Where does the Urban Existentialist live... (Score:-1)
by Spooging Cum-Wanker (y0k0_0h_n0@hotgrits.down.your.fucking.pants.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:41PM EST (#44)
(User #318665 Info) http://fuck.you.you.cum-wanking.motherfuckers!
If only we had their address... there's a target I'd cheer to see knocked off.

And remember - you saw it here on Slashdot.


News for turds, shit that splatters!

Heidi Wall's Camel fucked the Lover's Arrival, film at 11

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
But we Americans LIKE violence (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @04:42PM EST (#46)
Or rather, we place the value of safety below the rush we get from guns. Hey, caution is great, but it's not very interesting, and Americans can't stand being bored.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2, Interesting)
by ryants on Wednesday March 28, @04:43PM EST (#51)
(User #310088 Info) http://members.home.net/ryants
European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries

Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.

How does that figure into your argument?

Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:-1, Troll)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @04:47PM EST (#71)
    I seriously doubt that.

    Maybe there isn't rioting in the streets, but how do the stats on wifebeating look?

    Are there any stats?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
      by technos (technos@crosswinds.spam.net) on Wednesday March 28, @05:06PM EST (#164)
      (User #73414 Info) http://www.crosswinds.net/~technos/
      From the AP:

      JAPAN -- The Associated Press reports: "According to a 1996 survey by the Supreme Court, of the 37,395 marriage arbitration cases filed by women in Japan's family courts, one-third involved complaints of domestic abuse. The majority ended in divorce... According to a study of domestic violence released in May by Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the first-ever done in Japan, one-third of the 1,183 women with partners in the survey said they had been battered by their husbands or boyfriends."

      From a NOW blurb:

      ..concluded in their comprehensive study of domestic violence that nearly 35 percent of women in over 2000 American families had been subjected to one or more attacks by their husbands in the previous year before divorce...

      Sounds pretty even to me..
      .sig: Now legally binding!
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by nexthec (fletcher-at-litech-dot-org) on Wednesday March 28, @05:14PM EST (#204)
    (User #31732 Info)
    and dont for get sex, lots of sex in the japanese cinema, and we all know that carnal knowledge, reduces you to a violent killing spree
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
    by Barbarian (conanford_please-no@spam-yahoo.com) on Wednesday March 28, @05:39PM EST (#284)
    (User #9467 Info) http://barbarian.iwarp.com/
    Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.

    Indeed. And there doesn't seem to be an increase in tentacle sex crimes in Japan, even though tentacle rape hentai is readily available.

    When you pirate MP3's, you're downloading COMMUNISM
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
      by Tackhead on Wednesday March 28, @06:20PM EST (#386)
      (User #54550 Info)
      > > Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.
      >
      > And there doesn't seem to be an increase in tentacle sex crimes in Japan, even though tentacle rape hentai is readily available.

      Tentacles don't rape Japanese schoolgirls. Giant squid-like Japanese monsters rape Japanese schoolgirls!

      Write your Congressman today and demand that he or she stand up against the continuing encroachment of Great Cthulhu's 666th-Amendment-guaranteed right to bare tentacles in an crawling chaotic militia!

      (There, have we covered all the Constitutional hot-buttons today? ;-)

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @09:15PM EST (#535)
    Japanese cinema is loaded with violence, yet there is little overall violence in Japan.

    I have trouble believing this. I have a friend who worked in Japan for a few years. He had occasion to take a taxi home late one night. Part way through the trip he realized they weren't going the right direction. When he asked the driver about it, the driver pulled into a dark alley and stopped. A few friends of the taxi driver suddenly showed up, pulled him from the taxi, beat the living shit out of him, and robbed him of everything he was carrying, including his jacket (it was cold). He was left a bloody mess with several broken bones.

    When he finally made his way to a police station to report the crime, the Japanese police didn't want to hear about it. They flat told him that crimes just didn't happen in Japan, and he must be mistaken. They sent him away without so much as taking his name.

    If this approach to "crime fighting" is widespread in Japan, it would be easy to see how crime statistics could be kept artificially low. If a crime isn't even acknowledged, then it doesn't exist.

    I recall a similar story in the US a few years ago where Atlanta, GA was caught doctoring murder statistics. Atlanta's murder statistics had suddenly gone way down that year. The local news interviewed several relatives of murder victims who were complaining that all records of the crime had mysteriously gone missing. I seem to remember there were other shennanigans, too, like reclassifying many crimes to lesser offenses. This was all right before the '96 Olympics, presumably to make the city seem safe for tourists.

    Upshot is, if you want to brag to the world about a low crime rate it doesn't take much more than creative pencil-whipping to make it happen.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by Rick BigNail (ca.blaze@rickywkt) on Friday March 30, @12:25PM EST (#759)
    (User #242669 Info)

    TV

    I am not sure. But TV violence may be more influencial because there are more children watching TV than watching movie.

    I AM Joe Canada.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by nublord (jk(black dot)ml@home(black dot)com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:45PM EST (#59)
(User #88026 Info)
Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Do you have some data or links to back this up? I'm not asking this because I disagree with your or think I smell a rat. I ask becuase I'm curious just how low the violence is over there. From what US media shows me Europe has lots of rampant car chases through downtown and riots at soccer games (yes, I know the media isn't painting a true picture).

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by ishark on Thursday March 29, @02:54AM EST (#601)
    (User #245915 Info)
    From what US media shows me Europe has lots of rampant car chases through downtown and riots at soccer games (yes, I know the media isn't painting a true picture).

    We in Europe get the idea that in the US it's mostly drug dealing, people running around with guns, schools shootings and money and lawyers deciding everything.
    Ah, and don't forget kids and innocents fried on the electric chair....

    By comparing with what you say I'd guess that things must not be very different between Europe and the USA, it's (as usual) the media publishing only the shocking news and forgetting about all the rest.... Wherever you look, most of the citizens are honest workers, but it's always the killers who get the press coverage.....

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by Fat Rat Bastard (nathan@f-a-t-r-a-t-b-a-s-t-a-r-d.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:46PM EST (#62)
(User #170520 Info) http://www.fatratbastard.com
... And there is hardly any violence in a totalitarian state (well, at the citizen level anyway). That is the price of freedom my friends. Live in a society where you have a lot of freedom and some people who will abuse it, or live in a country with no freedom to abuse. I choose the former.

If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
by Heidi Wull (Beat.my.ass@I'm.a.karma.whore.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:46PM EST (#66)
(User #318504 Info) http://maybe.I.can.get.laid.if.I.play.nice
Well, reading your posts make me feel like killing someone. Does that count? Would my killing you mean that I am innocent because you caused your own death by inciting me to slay you?

Your logic is flawed: one, you think that you are intelligent. two, you think we care what you have to say. three, and most importantly, you said nothing.

Thanks for a nice quasi-summary post, there, dude. Without you, I might not have understood. Thank god you are here to make it all nice and clear for us lesser beings.

I am for the Spooging Cum-wanker's idea - let's kill the Urban Existentialist.


I had sex with a camel!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by NeuroManson on Wednesday March 28, @04:51PM EST (#87)
(User #214835 Info)
Well, technically by the logic displayed in the courts, Charles Manson should be released from prison... After all, he never actually committed the murders he's known for, he simply 'encouraged' the members of his 'family' to perform them... Speech is speech, after all, whether written or spoken...


Anyone who thinks my name is Marilyn, needs to read some books and learn a bit of history...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by epicurus (epicurus at wilter dot com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:55PM EST (#107)
    (User #252619 Info)
    actually, they got him on conspiracy didn't they? It's all well and good to talk about doing things, tell other people they should do things, but the second you and/or they do one action to further the conspiracy (say I buy some ski masks after we talk about robbing a bank), that's when you're gonna be in trouble...thus, if Manson and/or his followers didn't do anything but talk about it, they'd be in the clear.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
      by KahunaBurger on Wednesday March 28, @05:07PM EST (#169)
      (User #123991 Info)
      actually, they got him on conspiracy didn't they? It's all well and good to talk about doing things, tell other people they should do things, but the second you and/or they do one action to further the conspiracy (say I buy some ski masks after we talk about robbing a bank), that's when you're gonna be in trouble

      Doesn't work. The web site provided names and addresses of specific doctors, This could reasonably be counted as conspiracy as they did some of the leg work in planning an attack.

      Anyway, the orriginal post irks me excessivly. This sort of "responsibility" rhetoric that claims that finding anyone but the "trigger man" guilty is (IMHO) actually counter to imposing real responsibility on people. Its reductionist thinking that holding one person or group responsible negates the responsibility of any other person. No one can rationally claim that a particular movie, video game or website "made" them commit a particular crime. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess the contributory impact of such media on crime. But black and white thinkers who have to send one person to hell and let the rest of the world off pure innocent have a hard time dealing with that.

      Kahuna Burger
      ...will work for Chick tracts...

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
        by ElrondHubbard on Wednesday March 28, @05:35PM EST (#270)
        (User #13672 Info)
        I think a similar argument applies to, say, safety regulations. Let's say that, in order to reduce costs, someone proposes to loosen safety regulations in such a way that a power plant will release slightly larger amounts of some toxin -- radiation, PCBs, what have you -- into the environment in a given year. A study establishes that, if the change goes forward, the amount of toxin released will result in an increase in the local death rate of one tenth of one percent per year. Does that sound all that bad? Maybe not, if the relevant local population is, say, 10,000 people and the area sees maybe one hundred deaths a year. In that case, the increase of the death rate disappears into the noise. But what if the population is 100,000? That translates to one extra death per year. In a large city, there will be ten extra deaths per year; in a major metropolitan area, maybe one hundred extra deaths per year. You get the idea. If the change in regulation goes through, does that make the person who proposed it a mass murderer? Well, does it?

        Violence breeds violence. Exposure to violent media may not cause violence, but I'm certain it makes it easier to condone certain kinds of violence: revenge killings, capital punishment and other kinds of retributive justice, and so on. Are the people behind the Nuremberg Files any different?

        "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
          by Dr.Evil (cpatten)@(eleconindustries.com) on Wednesday March 28, @07:13PM EST (#471)
          (User #47264 Info) http://cpatten.com

          Warning: I'm about to fly my self-righteous flag - the karma loss doesn't concern me.

          Violence breeds violence. Exposure to violent media may not cause violence, but I'm certain it makes it easier to condone certain kinds of violence: revenge killings, capital punishment and other kinds of retributive justice, and so on. Are the people behind the Nuremberg Files any different?

          Is a society that sends the message that the extermination of innocent lives is acceptable, no matter the well-intentioned reason, any different?

          Please note: I do not condone the Nuremberg Files as moral, nor the killing of abortionists. That's my whole point, though - when a society says that it's okay to kill under any circumstance (except maybe self-defense - that's a boundary case), it's poisioned the well. Abortion is just such a poison.


          Right...
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
            by mi on Thursday March 29, @10:01AM EST (#656)
            (User #197448 Info)
            Sad, very sad, that a discussion about Your Rights Online has degenerated into the fight over abortions. Well...

            The sentence I quote from seems broken, but I think, I get the point.

            that it's okay to kill ... Abortion is just such a poison.

            It is not Ok to kill. Abortion is not murder. It is a medical procedure, not matter how much the fetus resembles a human being.

            But if you insist, let me agree with you for a minute. It is a killing -- fine. Why is it so "poisoning"?

            Many civilizations provided parents with full life-and-death power over their children. In Rome, the father owned his sons until death, or until a special legal procedure was completed -- performed in rare situations.

            Our own civilization restricts the rights of young people tremendously:

            • no voting
            • no smoking
            • no drinking
            are the most common restrictions.

            In most contries children have to attend schools often against their will. Children are also frequently subjected to violence from their peers with very little protection from society (He punched you in the nose? Well, I'll talk to his parents!). Until you are older you can not fully own your property either.

            This are all accepted limitations on rights based on the age of a person. It is also accepted, that parents wield significant power over their children.

            So, what's so poisoning about limiting the right to live to those who are born already? (IMO, it should be limited further -- until the child is at least a few years old or until he/she is still breastfed, but birth is probably better a separator).


            -mi
            87% of abortion foes are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant.

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 29, @11:43AM EST (#682)
              Do you have any children? If you did you would know full well that they are human from the moment they are concived. I know many more female abortion apponants than males. Most males have the same view you do, and as a woman I think it is discusting!!!
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
        by Steve B (steveb@NoPinkStuff.Radix.Net) on Thursday March 29, @09:35AM EST (#647)
        (User #42864 Info) http://www.radix.net/~steveb
        No one can rationally claim that a particular movie, video game or website "made" them commit a particular crime. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess the contributory impact of such media on crime.

        You can "assess" until the cows come home. What is forbidden is government action, outside a limited range of incitement to imminent lawless activity which the court found not to be present in this case.

        Blurring the distinctions between "X is bad", "The government has the authority to suppress X", and "The government should in fact suppress X" is a common from of sloppy thinking (when done accidentally) or propaganda (when done deliberately).
        /.
        If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
        by SEE (steven-ehrbar@home.com) on Sunday April 01, @11:10PM EST (#779)
        (User #7681 Info)
        George W. Bush is a murderer, having ordered air strikes that killed innocent people in Iraq. He lives at 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue, Washington DC.

        Okay, now if anybody kills Bush, I'm partly responsible, because I said that he's a murderer and where he lives, right?

        Steven E. Ehrbar
        Mindpixel: Help create an artificial intelligence.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by whizzird on Wednesday March 28, @05:27PM EST (#242)
    (User #129373 Info)
    About Manson: If I remember the movie correctly...he killed somebody out on a hippie commune and got busted for that. He also planned and assisted in the murders of Tate and her friends, and the LaBiancas(sp?), hence the conspiracy charge. I wonder if conspiracy to commit murder could be applied to the doctor killing site...probably not unless the DA could prove communication in both directions (like with an email to the webmaster).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
    by DunbarTheInept (SPAMBLOCKmadings@bmrb.wisc.edu.SPAMBLOCK) on Wednesday March 28, @05:53PM EST (#329)
    (User #764 Info)
    You misunderstood the logic. The court is drawing a line between TELLING someone to commit a crime and merely providing information that was then later used to commit a crime. If the website in question had ever said "Go kill these guys" THEN it would be in the same class as Charles Manson.

    Wirth made a language acclaimed in theory, but useless in practice. He appropriately named it after the guy who came up with "Pascal's Wager".

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @07:52PM EST (#492)
    Manson has been illegally imprisoned since day one. He is America's foremost political prisoner.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
I dunno, should we FOILLOW this lead? (Score:0)
by Have you seen my ass (because it is really big!) on Wednesday March 28, @04:51PM EST (#89)
(User #301041 Info) I_like_to_eat_beans!
all that damn foil running amock, creating havoc! We must kill all foil now! America must make a stand against foil!

Let's all play the troll game!

So, asswipe, how many points do you get for me posting to your comment?

Have you ever actually responded to anyone under one of your moronic posts?

Show yourself, puss!


What the hell is this shit?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by ethereal on Wednesday March 28, @04:52PM EST (#90)
(User #13958 Info)

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

If incitement from a film to do violence were a reasonable claim of innocence from the effects of your actions, then how much more powerful would be the argument advanced at the other Nuremberg trial: "I was just following orders". I wasn't incited, I was in the SS and they ordered me to do it! If your conclusions about European governments are true (and in general I would say they are not, but just for argument's sake), then this is exactly the wrong standard to use to prevent future holocausts in Europe.

I believe in strict personal reponsibility - it's nobody's fault but yours if someone tells you to do something, you do it, and it was illegal. In some cases if you were given false information, you may be able to in turn go after whoever it was that convinced you to take your actions, but even then you are responsible for the actions you take. And I doubt that a defense of "but somebody on the Internet said it was OK to blow up abortion clinincs" would fly very far in court (at least I hope it wouldn't). You can't blame your mistakes on taking the advice of random untrusted strangers, on the 'net or anywhere else.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by ADRA (aSmPeArMiScPaAnMo@hotmail.com) on Wednesday March 28, @06:16PM EST (#374)
    (User #37398 Info) http://www.feelthegrey.com/
    I would say that I am a strong believer in personal responsability, but I wouldn't say that I can exume my philosophy on others.

    I can not say that this can be universally applied. I mean, people are by nature influenced by one another. By ignoring this fact, then we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have sole control over our lives.

    Here is another point that is worth some heat. All of the movie examples that have been about violence have only been looking at the modern day violent movies, and have totally missed the point between drama, propaganda, and the differences between the two.

    When you see a movie containing violence, it is not solely the violence that causes the effect, but the premiss of the entire movie. It can be debated what the movie, or any content in that matter is trying get across to the viewer. I doubt that many have gone on a semetic killing spree for watching Schindlers list, so there is more to the portayal of violence than the violence itself. Also, it can be said that a movie enters the arena of propaganda when it is used as a tool for the viewer to take action of it. Unfortunately, all movies can be casted as propaganda, because every movie has an effect, if only negligable on the person. Now the question is, if a movie was made as propaganda to influence someone into a violent action, how could one tell the difference? This is as I see, a difficult question, simply because the whole interpretation of movies or content in general is so subjective.

    On the CBC last night I watched a report of how hard-core pr0n was being displayed on satellite TV in Canada, and that it was suggestive of pain to the participant(bondage++). One could say that the participant was never in any real danger by the action, that it was simply a dramitization.

    The problem with defining propaganda is that it has a subjective existence. One man's propaganda is another man's bitter sweet action movie, etc.. It can be said that the only judgement of the purpose of the content be judged by the intention of the author, or those that control the content.

    Man.. What a rant.. So, in conclusion, a violent movie shouldn't incite violence unless the person watching was messed up(crazy), or it was the itent of those in control(propaganda).

    By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by SquadBoy (squadboy@thisisnotitsisna.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:53PM EST (#95)
(User #167263 Info)
Ok so you think that just because some people have weak minds that the government should be allowed to control what we hear, see and say. Just throw think in there also. I'm sorry but even if there was a proven link between violence in the media and people doing bad things it would not be worth it to give up any freedom because of this. And yes the person is responsible for what they do. Otherwise all I have to do is have someone post a reply to this telling me to shoot you between the eyes and if I do so it is that persons fault because they incited me to do it :). Of course according to this it's all about the beer. And of course if you look at this and other stats like it during the 90s with all the violence in the media the crime rate has been going down. Let's see maybe crime has more to do with poverty and social justice and since the European countries in which crime is lower do a better job of taking care of the poor maybe that is the reason it is lower and not the censorship. I like the beer theory best myself. Now someone please tell me to go shoot this guy!

I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken about a great many things....
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    go plug that guy (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 30, @07:47AM EST (#747)
    When do you think government controls what you hear, see and say? Think China, N-Korea, Afghanistan under Taliban control for example. Do they really control what people hear, see and say?

    Nobody's saying that someone isn't responsible for what he does. Think straight, use common sense and try to understand that "The LAW of The US of A" does not, ever, cover all cases and situtations. I don't understand where you got the idea of a court without common sense, where every case could be solved by just looking back to prior cases?

    What's so damn special about precedence? So what if one case goes the other way, why should that be a guide for future judgements? Don't you have any trust in judges' and jurys' common sense?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2, Insightful)
by poot_rootbeer (poot@dork.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:53PM EST (#96)
(User #188613 Info)
What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

That's not what this decision says at all. It says that if a person sees a violent film and then commits a violent acts, then the producers of the film are innocent.

-Poot

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1, Insightful)
by Swift Kick (swift_kick@NOSPAM.hotmail.com) on Wednesday March 28, @04:54PM EST (#101)
(User #240510 Info)
Sorry, but you are mistaken.

This lawsuit does not say that "people that commit a violent crime after watching a violent movie are innocent". It simply says that whoever produces the violent movie has absolutely no responsibility over any actions committed by the movie audience. This, IMHO, is the correct approach to the issue. If you happen to dislike someone so much, say... Drew Carey, and put up a website or make a documentary where you show a brutally violent scene of you beating 'Drew Carey' to hell and back, and some idiot goes and does just that, is it now your fault that Drew Carey got his ass kicked?
Freedom of speech goes both ways, whether you like it or not. Censorship is not 'right' when it's used to curb messages that may not be particularly pleasing to your sensitive self.

And regarding Europe, did you actually spend any time in a European country? I was born in Europe, try to stay informed about events in my country, and I can tell you that a lot of european countries are as fucked up as the US in some respects (namely drugs, drunk driving, racism, etc). Simply because our media doesn't cover these issues doesn't mean they do not exist over there.

Now, with all due respect, instead of trying to sound sanctimonious and trying to whore up those karma points, get your shit straight.

Regards,

Swift
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
MOD DOWN -- obvious troll (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @04:57PM EST (#120)
Mod this down, somebody, this is obviously a troll, the poor bastard didn't even appear to understand the topic at hand.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is about as Insightful as a can of shit (Score:1, Funny)
by Have you seen my ass (because it is really big!) on Wednesday March 28, @04:58PM EST (#128)
(User #301041 Info) I_like_to_eat_beans!
New moderations are needed:

-1, Self-indulgent
-1, Self-rightous
-1, WHAT???
-1, didn't read the story

I say this only because all four apply in this situation.


What the hell is this shit?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    As Insiteful as... (Score:1)
    by virg_mattes on Thursday March 29, @12:26PM EST (#689)
    (User #230616 Info)
    > New moderations are needed:

    > -1, Self-indulgent
    > -1, Self-rightous
    > -1, WHAT???
    > -1, didn't read the story

    And, of course, -1, Can't Use a Spell-Checker.

    This should all be taken with a grin, as I fully agree with you on this post, except for the last one. Take note, his statement was, "What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent", and this is what the lawsuit said. It's the overturning on appeal that the original article mentioned, so (perhaps accidentally) he didn't make a factual error.

    Virg
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by Shoten on Wednesday March 28, @05:01PM EST (#145)
(User #260439 Info)
You speak as though responsibility is finite in quantity, as though it has to be divvied up among those who share it. If the person who committed an act of violence was in some way driven towards that act by an outside party, he is no less responsible, but that outside party played a part as well. Just because we might say that they "share" the blame does not mean that you divide it up between them, or that one is suddenly innocent because another bears some measure of guilt for their role.

Granted, the person committing the act was already predisposed towards doing it, and might have done it anyways no matter what. But I really cannot believe for a second that pointing out abortion clinic doctors as targets and rewarding violent behavior towards them would have no impact whatsoever. Simple cause and effect...and doing something is a cause.

A fool and his money are soon venture capital.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @05:08PM EST (#173)
You have this totally backwards. In your example, the decision would apply directly to the producers of the violent film, meaning that they can't be held responsible for the violent acts of those who watch the film. The decision says absolutely nothing about the perpetrators of the crime.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by Fishstick (fishstickBUBBA@LIKEShey.SPAMMERSto) on Wednesday March 28, @05:08PM EST (#175)
(User #150821 Info) http://fishstick.hey.to/
>What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Um, no. But that isn't what the appeal judgement said. The guys who ran a website pointing out the Doctors who performed abortions do not have to pay $109 Mil because others who saw their website went and killed doctors. A court had originally said that they were guilty of inciting to violence, this appeal judgement overturned that. (from the way _I_ read it)

So to put it in your terms is that those who make a violent film and then members of the audience are inspired to go commit murder are innocent.

---
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." - Einstein

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by Fishstick (fishstickBUBBA@LIKEShey.SPAMMERSto) on Wednesday March 28, @05:10PM EST (#183)
    (User #150821 Info) http://fishstick.hey.to/
    >So to put it in your terms is that those who make a violent film and then members of the audience are inspired to go commit murder are innocent

    ugh, that made no sense - tried to say the filmmakers are innocent of any crime.

    What I want to know is, did they catch the guys killing the doctors and bobming the clinics and if so, what happened to them?

    ---
    "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." - Einstein

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Content *producers* not responsible, criminals are (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @05:11PM EST (#187)
I think you read the decision backwards. Somebody should catch this on metamod, too, since the moderator misread it the first time through... In any event, the decision seems to support the converse of "people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent". Rather, this decision says "people who produce a violent film are innocent if people see it and commit a violent act."
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by shren on Wednesday March 28, @05:13PM EST (#194)
(User #134692 Info) http://www.shren.net/

If the defendant can reasonably claim that the film he watched incited him to commit the act, and that hence he is not responsible, then he can reasonably claim to be innocent.

Argh, the crap we put up with in our society.

People should be held responsible for the things that they do. Nobody should be able to claim "but they said to do it!" You did it - noone else, and you didn't even stop to think why other people wern't doing it. Maybe people would be a little more eager to unhook themselves from thier propaganda nipple if they could be made to realize that they can never disavow responsibility for thier own actions. They may do it legally, they may lie, they may hide, but they will have to live with what they did for the rest of thier lives.

Nobody considers giving the Nazis any slack, despite the fact that most of them "just followed orders". They don't deserve any. The fool who follows is just as guilty as the fool who leads. You'd think that this and other authoritiarian cults throughout history would teach us that the "he dared me to" legal/social defense simply cannot be tolerated.

Tocqueville warned us a hundred and fifty years ago that individualism was the only virtue that could save democracy. We must rebut the idea that membership in a hivemind somehow clears your sins away, before it goes too far.

--

shren.net

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by mheckaman on Wednesday March 28, @08:19PM EST (#508)
    (User #149644 Info)
    I agree totally about responsibility, but what happens when failure to follow the order results in your death? I know that in the US and most (all?) civilized countries, it's a soldier's responsibility to refuse to carry out an illegal order, and that would hold up if said soldier was put in a courtmartial for failure to follow an order, but do you really think that would hold up in Nazi germany? A soldier refusing to commit a "war crime" would be taken out and shot by their government without any doubt. You cannot FORCE a person to do the noble thing and sacrifice their life for another.

    Sounds like a clear cut case of duress to me.

    Disclaimer 1: I'm not in any way defending the actions of the Nazis, I think that Hitler was a sick fuck, but many people will commit illegal acts when there's a gun pointed at their head.

    Disclaimer 2: I'm a Canadian, not an American.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
      by shren on Thursday March 29, @02:25PM EST (#700)
      (User #134692 Info) http://www.shren.net/

      The philosophical debate about moral responsibility regarding coherced actions is a reasonably long one.

      My view on the matter:

      If I'm in an evil army, and I have a gun, and my superior says, while pointing a gun at me, "Kill those villagers", then, while I am not the primary motive force behind the death of the villagers, I still hold some responsibility.

      Not too much - my "commander" could just as easily killed them himself. He wants me to, probably so I'll crack and follow all of his orders in the future. I'd like to think that in this situation I'd die trying to kill the commander, but of course that's just a fantasy, an ideal, a hope. I might kill the villagers, or myself, or lock up completely and not do anything.

      The important thing is, where did this evil army come from? Such a thing can not be built without many, many people knuckling in and obeying a malign collective. When the army exists, and I am conscriped into it, I have no choice except to obey or die. When the army is just beginning, when things are at thier beginning, the choice is to obey, or not to obey. The primary moral failings here happened long before I was placed in this situation, when people said things like, "Yes, Hitler's a bastard, but he's doing great things for the economy, so I'll back him.", and set the stage for me being in front of a bunch of villagers with a gun much later.

      To prevent such things from happening, the "He told me to" defense must not be considered morally valid.

      --

      shren.net

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:2)
by Fencepost (fencepost@pobox.com) on Wednesday March 28, @05:14PM EST (#201)
(User #107992 Info)
What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent. Is this reasonable?

Just to clarify, because it's easy to misread the message I'm replying to on a quick glance: The above quote is basically what the lawsuit implies, though I think they'd say (and to some extent I agree) that the responsibility is shared. The decision is basically reversing that and saying that the person committing an act is solely responsible, not the creator of material that might have provoked that action (note that "might").

I doubt that this would affect cases where there's clear evidence that said material provoked a crime - if I put up a site instructing people to commit a crime I'd expect to remain somewhat liable, just as I would if I promised some sort of reward (presumably any reward, personal, financial or spiritual). If this countered that, the there'd be no repercussions if someone (e.g. Matthew Hale, leader of the First Church of the Creator) put up a page saying "Go kill a Jew today for God" or if some disgruntled spouse put up a page saying "I'll give $10,000 to the first person who kills my husband/wife."

-- fencepost
just a little off

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by ElrondHubbard on Wednesday March 28, @05:19PM EST (#219)
(User #13672 Info)
The general public is, well, stupid and impressionable. European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence. Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Aside from being one of the worst defenses of censorship I've ever heard, that's a very bad argument. Logic 101: correlation is not causation.

When I read simpleminded arguments like this that claim that exposure to violent or irresponsible imagery leads to violent or irresponsible acts, I tend to wonder whether countries with really high rates of violent crime -- like, say, South Africa -- have similarly high rates of violence in media. If they do, then are their violent media homegrown, or imported from Hollywood? Or is it just from watching TV news?

"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by Rick BigNail (ca.blaze@rickywkt) on Friday March 30, @08:07AM EST (#748)
    (User #242669 Info)

    Logic 101: correlation is not causation

    Actually there have been quite a few psychology lab expiriments that study whether violent movies would invoke violent acts. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to find out relatively conclusive answer because people with different agendas would provide biased information, either intentionally or unintentionally. (There was a large government funded research/inquiry on TV/Movies violence and impact on people in late 60s/early 70s. Those interested should be able to find it out.)

    I believe the scientific consensus is that violent movies/tv images would invoke violent acts to certain extent. Actually children are most easily impacted, followed by teenage male.

    Now different countries have very different social situations. So it is really hard to compare two countries or use one country to evaluate another.

    Take an trivial example, say last forty years many children who are now adult/teenagers watched many hours of TV. So they have been exposed to violence frequently. As a result, if some of them now go to see violent movies frequently, then they would be more likely to commit violent crimes.

    Now what about South Africa? Perhaps not many children watch TV daily. But there may be other factors. Becuase i am not familiar with South Africa, my remote guess is maybe gang problems? No matter what reasons are, it is not directly related to US. Certainly it does not imply US violence problems are caused by their problems rather than TV/movies violence.

    Actually what have i said?? Most of us are not sociologists or psychologists. I read some of the stuff i wrote from a psychology book. What should be done should depend on what is the case, not the other way around.

    For fun. Actually why Logic 101 (not Logic ABC)? Because for people to become logical they have to go to college? What about highschool? I was borned in Hong Kong. I think it is their weakness that they do not focus enough on logical or independent argument/debating/thinking skills. I really hope that education in US (or Canada) is much better.

    Ricky
    I AM Joe Canada.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by pnatural on Wednesday March 28, @05:20PM EST (#225)
(User #59329 Info)
Hence there is little violence in European countries.

Bleep!
 
You're wrong: Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime. Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
.
 
You see, when you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, by definition, the only guns left are in the hands of the criminals (and the government, but they're the same really). Additionally, criminals are less deterred from committing violent crimes because they know with certainty that their victims are unarmed.

A better example of "European Enlightenment" would be Switzerland: nearly 100% of the population owns firearms and the rate of violent crime is almost zero.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
    by ponxx on Wednesday March 28, @05:37PM EST (#277)
    (User #193567 Info)
    Read the articles you link to

    "The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate" (as opposed to 26% in England).

    So for a start, the crime you need guns for (murder!) is *much* higher in the states than in the UK. I suspect reasons for higher victimisation rates in the UK being the much higher population density (people in cities get in a pub-brawl much more easily than someone living on a farm out in the country).

    The chance to get shot is higher in the US than in other western country AFAIK. I will almost certainly not get shot here, cause even most criminals do *not* have guns.

    And talking about switzerland as an example for guns is complete rubbish. People there have guns, because they are expected to serve in the army in the case of war, so they have army rifles! Not hand-guns you can buy from a supermarket. The reason crime is low in switzerland is essentially because Switzerland is rich! People who are well off don't commit crimes because they have a lot more to lose!

    anyway, this is all completely off topic, but I get furious every time i hear this ridiculous argument about guns preventing crimes.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 28, @06:59PM EST (#456)
      Wow, way to go...take a story which outlines the problems with taking away people's ability to DEFEND themselves...and you deny the whole thing...greeeeeaaatt

      "I will almost certainly not get shot here, cause even most criminals do *not* have guns."
      Why? Because they're ILLEGAL?!??!
      Look up the definition of 'criminal' would'ya?
      I'm not even going to mention my curiosity about how you KNOW how many guns the crooks have...

      "they have army rifles! Not hand-guns you can buy from a supermarket."
      So guns are bad...NO WAIT! Except in THAT case...they're...uhhh...RIFLES,see..not evil(TM) Handguns piled up on every streetcorner
      GAWD..

      "I get furious every time i hear this ridiculous argument about guns preventing crimes."
      Maybe because it's TRUE...and you can't handle that...can you?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by markmoss on Wednesday March 28, @05:22PM EST (#232)
(User #301064 Info)
Ah yes, European citizens don't kill each other -- but in the last 100 years, their governments killed tens of millions. (I'll restrict this discussion to western Europe, since the Balkans is just too easy...) The British are still carrying on a colonial war in Northern Ireland. The French only gave up on colonial wars when they got their rears whipped everywhere from Vietnam to Algeria. The Germans and Italians had a worse colonial record than the Brits and French, until their colonies were taken away...

I think I prefer the American tradition of small-scale non-governmental violence.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is about asking people to murder doctors (Score:1)
by Catbeller on Wednesday March 28, @05:22PM EST (#233)
(User #118204 Info)
This is about posting a list of people whom one doesn't like,with their names, addresses, phone numbers and commuting habits. This is about solicitation to kill those people. Those doctors have been targeted for death by Jesus, and at least one is already dead. 'Nuff said.
"But once again, Technology refused to be Dignity's bitch." The Daily Show Millenium Edition
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by CSC on Thursday March 29, @03:48AM EST (#612)
(User #31551 Info)
European governments have recognised this for sometime, and take care of these issues for them by implementing strong censorship of violence.

Wrong. There is much less censorship in Europe, be it of violence, sex or (let's not forget it) copyright infringement.

Though there is indeed less violence in European countries. I think (IMO) this is more of a cultural difference than legal difference (though cultural differences tend to shape law): the US has a culture that is not only gun-liking but somewhat trigger-happy and amazingly self-righteous, both individually (vs. other people) and as a country (vs. rest of world).

-- Colin

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
bzzzzttt, wrong! (Score:1)
by Ender Ryan on Thursday March 29, @08:28AM EST (#636)
(User #79406 Info)
If the film ENCOURAGED the violent act then yes, they are in part responsible. But the person who committed the violent act is ALSO responsible.

Why the hell do we always try to pin the responsibility on a singler person/entity in cases like this.


- warning!! - my opinion may differ from yours!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:This is about responsibilty. (Score:1)
by mi on Thursday March 29, @09:29AM EST (#645)
(User #197448 Info)
What this lawsuit says is that people who see a violent film and then commit a violent act are innocent.

No, the above statement is not true. The perpetrators are not innocent. The plaintiffs claim, that the people, who encouraged the crimes and cheered upon completions are also responsible.

Is this reasonable?

Of course not (well, I'll grant you the "in some instances" exception). And that's not what the plaintiffs argue.

Consider an example of someone hiring a killer. They are both guilty, but of different things. And the one hiring is usually punished more, but the killer is, without a doubt, guilty. -mi

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  Do not underestimate the power of the Force.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]