Arizona

[jmermin]

Yeah, I'm gonna go there.

So there's a thread on coleoptera's facebook in which (very loosely summarized) coleoptera calls for the victims to sue Sarah Palin, and LF decries the implicit blame assignment as a formal logical fallacy

Comments

[coleoptera]

I loved this

[jmermin]

I respect where you're coming from here, but the cure you propose is far worse than the disease.

First, we should recognize that -pretending for the moment that the bullseye map is the only monstrous thing she's ever done- Palin's moral culpability in the shooting of Representative Giffords and her constituents is exactly the same today as it was last week, and exactly the same as her culpability in the shooting of Representative Rahall and his constituents (which, it is devoutly to be wished, will never happen).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have an oracle which can determine this level of guilt. Could Giffords have taken Palin to court last week, or did she have to wait for someone to actually shoot her? Can Rahall take her to court now, on the grounds that the nutjob who finally cracked was equally likely to be in his district? A negative answer to either question is nonsensical, but a positive answer discards habeas corpusEither way, suppose you manage to bring her to justice, however it's defined. Since you

[coleoptera]

Most of what you say is accurate, but ignores the fact that irresponsible speech led to crimes including murder. The victims and families of those crimes have a right to ask for justice. I don't suggest that they should or will receive it, but that I believe that the question should be asked again in a court of law. It is much more about that process than it is about the outcome. This isn't anything like a SLAPP - these people have legitimate claims to make that deserve to be heard. To ignore such a potential avenue for justice is to cede that right.

Her moral culpability is not the same last week as it is this week. Actions matter.

[fractal9091]

I think that last sentence is an good and important point. Really, we don't know a priori what the actual danger of a given action is, and the danger is not constant. For example, Jeff could post violent metaphors in his LJ, and trust that his audience consists of sensible people who would never act on such things. In that situation, the only way to judge whether he is in fact being responsible or not is to look at the outcome - did any of his readers actually go and do something stupid? If something does happen, his metaphors would have to reevaluated in that context

[johnthacker]

In that situation, the only way to judge whether he is in fact being responsible or not is to look at the outcome - did any of his readers actually go and do something stupid?

So you're saying that since the actual shooter in question didn't pay attention to Palin at all, then her culpability is less?

[fractal9091]

If she had no influence or control over the shooter, then I would say she has no responsibility for his actions.

[jmermin]

the only way to judge whether he is in fact being responsible or not is to look at the outcome No, the way to judge my responsibility is to re-run the universe a million times from the instant of my posting, then re-run it again from the same moment, but stipulating that I didn't post it. Then count the deaths and subtract

[johnthacker]

First, we should recognize that -pretending for the moment that the bullseye map is the only monstrous thing she's ever done

Only if you admit that the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are also guilty of doing "monstrous things."

Oh well.

[jmermin]

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Oh well.