Can we rule out C, given what the execution of the plot indicates regarding this person’s intelligence?
Whey Standard
@wheystandard.bsky.social
1265 Followers
403 Following
Cornell Law ‘14. Financial regulation, law, politics, България, and now featuring fatherhood.
-
-
to do an act that is designed to, and likely to, directly cause the death of that child.
-
And I see a lot of daylight between directing a kid to ascribe to an idea generally, and directing them to do a physically damaging act to their body.
And I think we could probably differentiate further between directing a kid to do a physically damaging act to their body, and directing them..
-
In the hypothetical, you're telling the, say, 6 year old they should jump into the well, that it will be ok, here's how you climb up the well wall, you don't need to tell your parents, you can trust me, everything is better down there.
-
I don't think that's quite right. It would open up the door to "convincing a trans kid to go through with certain gender-affirming surgical procedures is child endangerment", but we're already largely there in some states.
-
that kid to follow you and then to, say, jump into a well to their death, is that protected speech because the kid jumping into the well isn't a crime? I think we'd still call that child endangerment or contributing to the delinquency of a minor at the very least.
-
The argument would be that guidance counselors, like basically every employee of a school, owe a duty to the children under their care, whereas ChatGPT doesn't.
That said, this has started to make me think: if you come across a primary schooler in a store, and you use only words to convince...
-
I think it's a close call under existing caselaw. It is speech, and it doesn't quite fit into any of the established 1A exceptions. That said, I think it should be put into "speech integral to criminal conduct", because if it really can't be restricted under the 1A, the 1A is gonna be amended.
-
We don’t, and substantively probably won’t for many months, as their initial answer will likely just be a bunch of “deny” (not for nefarious reasons, that’s how litigation works).
-
Don’t feel guilty! I’m ultimately on here for me, and writing out my arguments helps me clarify and test them. If you read them and your thinking is at all changed (whether to “maybe he’s right” or to “ok that’s bs, I’m more confident I’m right now), that’s gravy.