Should operators of websites be held criminally responsible if users post death threats, notices of intent to commit crimes, instructions on how to build bombs, etc?

Saturday 30th August, 12:19 PM JST

Latest 15 of 40 Total Comments Show All

kokuryu at 05:30 AM JST - 5th September

Most operators of websites do not even know what 1/1000th of what gets posted on a website. A large website with thousands of people using it could get millions of messages.

This is just the same as saying that the company that pressed the piece of paper that the criminal wrote the ransom note on is liable for the ransom.

It is all the fault of only the person who makes the threat.
nigelboy at 09:19 AM JST - 5th September

Thundercat

"Informing" the police and "removing" the message are two entirely different actions. Please read YOUR statement.

"Uttering threats, especially death threats is not protected by freedom of speech. It's a crime for a good reason. If these kinds of posts are **not removed or moderated **then the operator is definately liable."

And in fact, 2ch has released access logs for criminal intent messages to the police. The lawsuit you cite is for defamation. (Civil cases)
thundercat at 10:08 AM JST - 5th September

I know eactly what I wrote and adjusted my statement to include informing police to clarify my position. I wrote that an operator is liable which has a synonym of responsible, get it? I haven't changed my opinion at all.

You want to fault me for slightly altering my statement to make my position better understood, fine. How about actually posting an opinion instead of constantly criticizing others. You do have an opinion, don't you?

Why has the operator of 2ch released access logs if he is in no way responsible for what is posted on his site? Could it be he fears that he is indeed legally responsible? The defamation lawsuits (libel suits) further prove that he is LEGALLY responsible for what is posted on his site. My statement was that he was legally responsible. I never said criminally or civilly, I said legally. Please point out where I have contradicted myself. While you are at it PLEASE STATE YOUR OPINION.
nigelboy at 11:09 AM JST - 5th September

Thundercat.

Read the original question

"Should operators of websites be held criminally responsible if users post death threats, notices of intent to commit crimes, instructions on how to build bombs, etc?"

The original question does not state anything whatsoever about "informing" the authorities nor does it touch on anything relating to civil code violations.

My view is that operators of websites should not be held criminally responsible if users post death threats or notices of intent to commit crimes. See my example above.

In regards to instructions on how to build bombs, that's whole different matter and should not be lumped together with the above.
thundercat at 11:37 AM JST - 5th September

Like talking to a wall with you. I posted my opinon. If you just wanted to click do you agree, yes or no, then just click and write nothing. If you want to give your opinion about something, then do that. You get it. It's a forum.

Why are posts on building bombs and death threats different? What, one is a less illegal than the other?
nigelboy at 12:04 PM JST - 5th September

Why are posts on building bombs and death threats different?

Would you prefer a Mr. A going "postal" in Akihabara without warning beforehand or would you prefer that Mr.A warns his premeditated crime so the authorities can deal with it?
thundercat at 02:05 PM JST - 5th September

Ok. You want to play the question game. Is a website operator criminally responsible if users post child pornography on their websites? I would guess by your previous post that you think they would not be... or is it ok to pick and choose the laws you want to follow?
nigelboy at 02:48 PM JST - 5th September

Is a website operator criminally responsible if users post child pornography on their websites?

Is Google responsible criminally if their search enginine "hits" those websites?

BBS are just another "tools" to communicate and that has been my position all along. What if I have a blog site that gets 100K hits a day and some guy threatens to go "postal" in Akihabara? And when the guy posted the message, I happen to be in a place where there are no access to computers for a month. Am I criminally responsible??
Nessie at 03:07 PM JST - 5th September

I'm totally with Nigelboy on this.
thundercat at 03:13 PM JST - 5th September

You really dont understand the difference, do you? Search engines are completely different from websites (where the information 'resides') so, no Google wouldn't be responsible. If you ran a website that received 100k hits a day and left it 'running' unattended, not only do I think you would be criminally responsible for criminal activities that transpire on your site but you would be an idiot to boot.
nigelboy at 03:23 PM JST - 5th September

thundercat.

Search engines are completely different from websites (where the information 'resides') so, no Google wouldn't be responsible

Doesn't that make them more responsible? You need to clarify.

If you ran a website that received 100k hits a day and left it 'running' unattended, not only do I think you would be criminally responsible for criminal activities that transpire on your site but you would be an idiot to boot.

What if it were just 1K hits? Does that "relieve" my criminal responsibilities? What's the threshhold? Can I leave my website unattended for 2 days? What's the threshold?
thundercat at 05:04 PM JST - 5th September

No threshold, if you don't have the safe guards in place you suffer the consequences.

Where do you draw the line? Death threats are ok. Notices of intent to commit crimes are ok. Instructions on building bombs are not ok. Child pornography? Sulfide gas? C'mon, seriously, why should any of these things be ok?
Zurg at 02:26 AM JST - 6th September

I suppose the 'Operators' cannot be held too accountable.

Those insane Doe-Doe's use the freedom of speech to threaten and to educate people to do evil. Like 'How To Take A Life', or '5 easy steps to kill yourself'.

I believe one of the four sins in the Divine Principle it is called 'Multiplication of Evil'. That is not aiding and abetting on the Operators side.

However, the Operator can still monitor those 'evil doers' and turn them over to the authorities. Therefore, in one sense, the Operators are not responsible, but they can be responsible by turning those a** holes in.
apecNetworks at 05:44 PM JST - 6th September

No, as long as it is moderated to delete extreme forms of comments like, "notices of intent to commit crimes". From my experience, those who would commit an act of retribution for some reason, they generally don't warn the victim, but rather just attack. Then, you have the extensive covert censorship that is occurring in the US - this is a form of moderating the website covertly.

I have tested the covert censorship by posting provocative statements relevant to them, and they can act or react w/in a few hours. Moderators should just concentrate on the obvious problem posts, so that it demonstrates some posts need to be deleted.
apecNetworks at 06:20 PM JST - 6th September

For political reasons, the US Agencies places high priority to maintain the illusion of freedom of speech.