Could victims or families of victims sue those who post bomb making instructions??????

[skip fox]

It might not be illegal to post such instructions, but those who do might not if they were seen as financially responsible for their actions.

[cthulu2016]

1. If they were complete assholes they might.

Why would anyone do such a thing? Simple greed? Opposition to a free society? A desire to clog up the courts?

But yeah, people can try to sue all sorts of folks for all kinds of things.

They would lose, however.

[Bay Boy]

2. I don't know but if they did

could they also sue Google maps for giving them directions to Boston?

[NutmegYankee]

3. If it's not illegal, then they can't be held financially responsible.

I believe this would be a first amendment argument.

[skip fox]

7. I think one can be civilly libel with being criminally so. Not sure.

But if they could sue, that might inhibit the distribution of such instructions (esp. if we can block certain foreign sources which provide such information).

I'm victims of drunk drivers can sue bars which allow someone to drink too much and drive.

Can victims of shootings sue gun dealers who don't preform due diligence in their background check or sell massive amount of ammo to a single individual in a short period of time?

[NutmegYankee]

10. You have to prove negligence.

For instance, bartenders have a duty to stop serving an obviously drunk customer. If they keep serving drinks, they can be held liable.

Failure to perform a background check would be negligence.
Selling lots of ammo is not negligence. There is no duty to limit ammo purchases. People have been known to buy thousands of rounds at a time for shooting matches or just stocking up if the price is good. A typical ammo brick is 500 rounds. And in all mass shootings to date, the ammo spent is actually small when compared to boxes. A typical box is 50 rounds. Even the mass amount shot at Newtown was only about 3 boxes.

Just putting information out there is a protected right. A civil case would likely get thrown out on first amendment grounds.

[Vincardog]

4. Yes but they would lose

[Vincardog]

5. Should Willie Coyote be held liable if someone drops an anvil on a bird?

[WinkyDink]

6. Hardly. And the Internet isn't the only source of this type of info (See: Libraries.).

[Earth_First]

8. I have perused this information many times...

http://anarchistcookbook.com/

It doesn't mean I plan to use it to hurt anyone.

[skip fox]

9. Of course not. But if you do, and used it to kill people (these bombs are, like automatic rifles,

meant to do little else after all, should not the those showing you how to do so bear at least some financial responsibility? And if they felt financially responsibile might they act more socially and humanlly responsibile.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

29. And what would be the "more socially and humanlly responsibile" way?

To block any information, and that is what this type of proposal is, is not socially and humanly responsible. Once you start to censer information others WIL use your model to censer more information to the point where there is no ability to get any unless it is sanctioned.

[PoliticAverse]

11. You might find the following information on a related situation of interest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

[Llewlladdwr]

12. Would this include the publishers of chemistry textbooks? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Good luck, goes well beyond the anarchist cookbook

Well beyond it.

So first question, where did they get it from?

[lpbk2713]

14. Of course they could.

But whether they would win a judgment is a whole nother ball game.

[TransitJohn]

15. And while we're at it why not

have the family members of suicides sue the boy scouts or coast guard for knot tying classes.

On edit: I'm trying to say that knowledge is not a crime, that'd be thought crime. Intent is almost always in criminal law. I know you're talking civil actions, but come on, knowledge???

[skip fox]

16. I was asking a real question.

and I feel like I'm dealing with the NRA.

[TransitJohn]

17. Are you calling me an NRA member?

I'm assuming you meant 'dealing with'.

I can assure you, that is the furthest thing from the truth. I'm just pointing out that what you asked seems patently absurd to me.

[skip fox]

19. I was only posing an honest question, and not just to you.

But when people feel that excessive (to me, like "Fire in the theater&quot first amendmentrights trump the human right to live, is there not a parallel to those who claim the same for 2nd amendment rights? AK-47s, 30 round clips, etc.

We, after all, don't allow someone to post instructions for making a nuclear weapon.

(It's far from my intent to call someone names. I was making a legal question which might prove a viable way to stop such situations in the future, and feelk I was getting knee-jerk reactions, Wayne LaPierre style).)

[NutmegYankee]

22. Your comparison is way off and frankly ludicrous.

You are advocating for censorship. Let's be clear about that - You are advocating Censorship!

We ban yelling fire in a theater as that act causes sudden danger to people because of panic. Another example is threats, which imply a risk of harm that is real. Posting bomb info on the web does not cause a direct risk to people. Someone would actually have to build one and choose to use it, both illegal acts. And you have to overcome the fact that we have had this info out there for a long time. Much of it is basic chemistry.

As for a nuclear weapon, the instructions to make one have been out there for ages. Who doesn't know how little boy or fat man functioned? If you want to compare my view to the NRA, then go attack the ACLU as I'm a card carrying member. I'll gladly stand behind defense of our civil liberties.

[Llewlladdwr]

26. "We, after all, don't allow someone to post instructions for making a nuclear weapon."

Actually, we do:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html

Enjoy...

[Chan790]

28. Yeah...my 5th grade teacher was deeply troubled when my report on nuclear energy...

included instructions on how to make a rudimentary hydrogen bomb. She could not believe that such information was available in the public sphere...and I had to answer questions for some nice men in gray suits she had called.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. How broad reaching do you want to get here, Chemistry textbooks from at least high school level up..

have enough information for you to figure out how to make bombs, if not specific instructions on how to construct a bomb. Physics textbooks even show you, roughly, how to build nuclear bombs, should those be banned, or the publishers sued?

[skip fox]

20. Of course there are difficulties. Is that what a justice system is for?

I am asking without and agenda. It's a series of real questions.

What legally stops Martin Richard's family taking those who post such instructions to court?

What are the precise legal reasons they cannot? (And likely they can't. I was actually wonderingwhy not. And if there IS no good reason, may that's a way--by infringing a bit on the first admendment on those who want to see these instructions for whatever reasons--to cut down on such bombings.)

[Humanist_Activist]

21. The reason is because information dispersal cannot be criminalized...

nor can the written word, there is no civil penalties for these because if we were to allow that, all scientific, engineering, civil, and social, advancement would stop. You aren't talking about a little violation of the first amendment, but throwing the whole thing out.

To be blunt, this wouldn't cut down on bombing because once the information is released, then the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back in. Whether its the formula for TNT, or diagrams of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs, you can try to sue those out of existence, but good luck on that score.

The issue is that you aren't thinking of the consequences of this type of action, should they also sue everyone who reposts the information? How about those who summarize and report on it(that damned 1st amendment again!). What would warrant information as so dangerous you can be sued for disseminating it? What would be the standard, the same as obscenity laws? Or something even more arbitrary.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. There was civil action taken against the publisher of

a book about How to be a Hitman

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/21/news/mn-41586

There was also pressure against the Anarchist Cookbook when it first came out as well.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Too bad their insurance company settled the case...

They most likely would have won the civil case, but at a steep cost of defending themselves.

"Pressure" is a funny word, there was also pressure to ban Dungeons and Dragons, many different types of video games, movies, music, books, etc. yet, all of those are still around, waiting to be found. Hell, thanks to the civil case on the hitman book, you can now download the book free of charge, because the publisher gave up its copyright as part of the settlement.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

25. Blocking any access to ANY info is wrong!

It could and would set into effect a precedent that could have ramification on access to any and all information.

So no, worse idea since Bush!

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Sounds like you would love life in North Korea.

All access to all information of any kind is tightly controlled there. No one gets to learn anything unless Dear Leader approves it first.

[Travelman]

30. Sure they could.

They're just not likely to get very far with it.

First of all, a lot of these sites are hosted outside of the US, which puts them outside the reach of US courts. Secondly, a lot of the people who post these things are also outside of the US, which also puts them outside of the reach of US courts. There are no extraditions over civil matters, which is what a suit would be.

Third, assuming those first two hurdles are crossed, there would have to be a preponderance of evidence that X person would not have built Y bomb but for the instructions posted by Z person on the internet. Not bloody likely: if X person was planning to build a bomb, and they didn't have Z person's instructions to build Y bomb, they would have just given up? No way. They would have simply found the instructions somewhere else. And then the plaintiff's case collapses in a farting heap.



They'd better get used to hearing "find for the defendant."