You may have heard of this case, as it is one of the better known cases regarding the first amendment. For those of you who don't, I'll give you a brief over view.
A book publishing company known as Paladin Press published a book entitled Hitman: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors. This book was a step by step, technical how-to manual, on how to kill someone. It started at how to find the right assassin, went onto how to commit and prepare for the murder, then finally told how to get away.
In 1993 a divorced man with a disabled son hired a hitman to kill his family, to gain the 2.5 million dollars of settlement money given to them after the hospital made a mistake that led to the son never being able to use his lungs. In the end, three people were dead: the ex-wife, nurse, and his own son.
This is where it gets tricky. The hitman who killed the family, claimed to have used the book Hitman as a guide in the murder. The question is, is the book protected by first amendment, the freedom of speech? When it was brought to court the first time, it was struck down on grounds of the first amendment. They claimed that this book does not encourage anyone to commit murder, it simply gives advice and should be read strictly as entertainment. The the plaintiff was granted an appeal, but before it could be taken to court once again a settlement was agreed upon. All remaining books were given to the family that suffered the murders to be disposed of.
Now it's time for you to decide. Does this book incite imminent lawless action, or is it up to the reader to decide what to do with the material he or she reads?
Personally, I believe that this book should have been protected by the first amendment. To say that anyone who reads it is going to go out and commit murder is ridiculous. Hitman never said "hey, use what we wrote in this book to commit a murder!" and most people who read it most likely viewed it as entertainment. Additionally, anyone reading this book in an information way has already has decided to commit murder. The publisher should not be held responsible because the hitman simply used their book to gain information. That's like suing your friend for giving you a pocket knife and showing you how to use it. Could you hurt someone? Yes. Is it his fault for teaching you? No. Hitman could have even been used as a defensive guide, if you know what a hitman is thinking you will be better prepared to defend yourself against one.
Yes, I believe that the book is protected by the first amendment. It's up to the reader to be responsible. Just like it's up to the player to play the lottery responsibly and the drinker to drink alcohol responsibly.
However, why would anyone read a manual on how to murder if they didn't want to use it?
What idiot writes a book on how to kill people, and expects everything to be okay. But I still believe it should be protected though. The book didn't technically tell anyone to commit murder. Like if you sue the store that sold you the gun that you killed your wife with, does that seem fair.
That is exactly what the book started out as, a fictatious book about the day in the life of a hitman. The publisher decided that it would sell better as a how to manual.
That raises another issue, is the publisher's act of changing it to a how to manual enough of a reason to claim the book is unnecessarily specific and has no other logical use than to assist in assassination. After all, it could have stated in its original form, would that have saved lives?
Everyone seems to agree that it should be protected.
and has no other logical use than to assist in assassination.
I have a question: If the book said that it should be used to commit murder, would it still be protected? I think so. What if the writer of the book thought that murder should be legal? I would think he is allowed to voice his views no matter who disagrees with them.
If the book said that it should be used to commit murder, would it still be protected?
If the book told readers to commit murder, it would be viewed as a clear and present danger, as well as something that incites imminent lawless action. Not to mention, the publisher would be in major trouble for encouraging an illegal act.
What if the writer of the book thought that murder should be legal?
That would be completely protected by the first amendment, as long as the author does not directly tell us to commit murder.
I would think he is allowed to voice his views no matter who disagrees with them.
That's what the first amendment is for. Free speech is restricted, however, when it presents a clear and present danger, and if it causes imminent lawless action. The imminent lawless action part was added after the case Brandenburg v Ohio. A KKK leader held a rally, during which he said that vengeance will be taken against non whites. A debate came from it, asking whether this speech was allowed? Even if he didn't tell anyone to murder non whites, does this speech encourage them to do so? In the end, Brandenburg won the case, and for our freedom of speech to be restricted speech must cause imminent lawless action. If the speech was given again, and in it Brandenburg told the KKK members to murder non whites right away, it would be considered illegal.
he's only in trouble if someone does it and says that his book gave them the idea.
If the book comes right out and tells someone to commit an illegal act (especially murder), I doubt they will win the case. It most likely be viewed by the Supreme Court as imminent lawless action. It's the same thing as if Brandenburg had taken a KKK member aside after the speech, and told him to go kill a black man. The only way it wouldn't become a problem until someone commits the act, is if no one sues until then.
