Interesting question and article that made me think about the question in the topic.
If I teach my friend how to kill you effectively (let's say it's a sort of thing which cannot be used in self-defense; for instance, using a sniper's rifle), am I aggressing against you? To me it seems not.
1. But then, if we say that the purpose of the law is defense of one's rights, then why shouldn't the law protect against crime-facilitating behavior which in and of itself does not directly violate one's rights?
2. Even if we say that teaching alone is not a crime, once the actual crime has been comitted, should the teaching be called a crime retroactively?
3. From natural law's perspective, should a lookout to robbery be called an accessory to the robbery and also a criminal in the case the robbery has happened? Or should we say that only the guy who actually physically stole my stuff is the criminal, but not the guy who facilitated it? What about a case of a hired killer: is the killer a criminal but not the contracter?
You are teaching people a skill. You cannot help how or if they use it. You can use a sniper rifle for all kinds of things.
I used to go to computer shows where they sold hacking software. It always had warnings and legality stickers and you knew what it was for...."novelty" purposes. Certainly, you would never use the software.
As for speech, if there is a reasonable determination made (by the court) that your words did in fact facilitate violence or crime, you are liable. It is called the "fighting words" doctrine. There two other speech examples where the court can find you liable; slander/libel, and one other...(I think it had to do with socialist speech in like WWI)...but alas, I cannot remember it, now.
The getaway driver or the lookout is a part of "conspiracy" to commit whatever crime you are talking about. So, the law doesn't really let you get away if you don't dip your fingers into the cookie jar per se. The flashing headlights to warn drivers is a ridiculous case. That is not playing an integral role in a crime. You could be warning people of anything. Historically, there has been nothing wrong with telling criminals that they are being watched (etc.). There are an infinite amount of explanations for the behavior that the cops think is a "warning" of their activites. Although, in our terror/security/post-9/11 zero tolerance society, there are probably legal boundaries being blurred.
Within Aristophanes' link you will find a section about the distinction between incitement and fighting words:
"Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to cause immediate breach of the peace. The modern standard was defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government. The Ohio statute under which the conviction occurred was overturned as unconstitutional because "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."
The difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker."
In both cases you will note the importance of the necessity for immediate relation between words and action. Simply teaching someone how to operate a sniper rifle is not likely to be viewed as advocating immediate violence unless the instructor was in fact advocating immediate violence but that's another case entirely.
FlyingAxe: If I teach my friend how to kill you effectively (let's say it's a sort of thing which cannot be used in self-defense; for instance, using a sniper's rifle), am I aggressing against you? To me it seems not.
As both bloomj31 and Aristophanes have said, teaching a skill is not criminal. There would have to be some other crime committed.
FlyingAxe: 1. But then, if we say that the purpose of the law is defense of one's rights, then why shouldn't the law protect against crime-facilitating behavior which in and of itself does not directly violate one's rights?
Firstly, the purpose of law is not to defend rights. Law is the nonviolent resolution of disputes. If anyone says otherwise, they are talking about the way things ought to be. Saying that the law ought to protect people's rights is all well and good, but once you start down the path of third parties deciding what the law ought to be, you are heading right back into statist territory. In this particular scenario, who is the victim, the teacher or the student? There is no victim. There is no dispute. To criminalize teaching behavior is to create the state.
FlyingAxe: 2. Even if we say that teaching alone is not a crime, once the actual crime has been comitted, should the teaching be called a crime retroactively?
Absolutely not. The teacher was not part of the actual crime. Suppose there was a hit and run. Should the person who taught the driver how to drive be held responsible? No.
FlyingAxe: 3. From natural law's perspective, should a lookout to robbery be called an accessory to the robbery and also a criminal in the case the robbery has happened? Or should we say that only the guy who actually physically stole my stuff is the criminal, but not the guy who facilitated it? What about a case of a hired killer: is the killer a criminal but not the contracter?
Natural law is not a good method for determining law. There is either a dispute, or there isn't. If you partake in the crime, you are part of a dispute. As pointed out earlier by Aristophanes, if you are part of the conspiracy to commit the crime, you do not get off scot-free.
In regards to the hired murderer, there are some differing opinions on this forum. Some people say that only the murderer should be held responsible. People who hire murderers could be shunned or whatever. My opinion is that they are part of a conspiracy to commit a crime, and that hiring a murderer is a criminal action.
Aristophanes:As for speech, if there is a reasonable determination made (by the court) that your words did in fact facilitate violence or crime, you are liable. It is called the "fighting words" doctrine. There two other speech examples where the court can find you liable; slander/libel, and one other...(I think it had to do with socialist speech in like WWI)...but alas, I cannot remember it, now.
I'd like to note for the record that I categorically reject the "fighting words" doctrine. If a person says something that offends you, and you physically attack the person in response, I consider you, not him, to have committed aggression.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Since the Chaplinsky decision, the "fighting words" doctrine has been steadily eroded by a succession of cases.
This short essay covers the history of the cases quite well imo.
I understand that, and with all due respect, it's irrelevant to my point.
Now that I'm looking at the particulars of this case from the article, I'm not sure that the legal citations we've dug up so far conclusively answer the prescient legal question. The "sniper rifle" analogy given is not....exactly analogous imo.
In the case cited the Petitioner was neither charged with advocating immediate illegal behavior nor inciting anyone to commit a violent act, he simply used his headlights to signal to another driver that there was a speed trap ahead and he was actually ticketed for "flashing after-market emergency lights."
The first judge found that this rule did not apply because the petitioner was using his emergency lights to communicate with other drivers and that that form of communication is protected by the first amendment. Apparently the decision is being appealed so we'll see what happens.
I'm willing to bet that if it ever makes it to the Supreme Court that they'll find in favor of the Petitioner for the same reason the district court judge did.
Aristophanes:[...] and one other...(I think it had to do with socialist speech in like WWI)...but alas, I cannot remember it, now.
"Clear and Present Danger." See Schenck vs. United States
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH