"Linked"? How is this even relevant evidence? There's no possible way of knowing that video(s) caused (two) mass killings. It's obvious the court ruled on a anecdotal 'opinion' of a biased self-proclaimed 'expert'. No one should go to prison for something like this. Sharing a video are not crimes. The individual perpetrating the crime is the offender, not some distant interaction on a platform. This is nuts. In light of this, sharing videos on line could be construed this way for anyone. There has to be no reasonable doubt whatsoever for a conviction. This standard appears to be lost in the UK. It is the return of the Star Chambers over there. The precedent of this was set in England with the Simon Sheppard case, a publisher, whose cartoon was downloaded off from his website, printed, and then someone slid the cartoon under a synagogue door as a joke. Sheppard spend time in prison for someone else's crime.
"[Judge] Field told Harris 'at the very least, the material you produced and published has had some influence upon the young man (Gendron)'".
The judge is not a medical practitioner, a mind reader, nor a psychiatrist. This is terribly biased and wrong.
"Linked"? How is this even relevant evidence? There's no possible way of knowing that video(s) caused (two) mass killings. It's obvious the court ruled on a anecdotal 'opinion' of a biased self-proclaimed 'expert'. No one should go to prison for something like this. Sharing a video are not crimes. The individual perpetrating the crime is the offender, not some distant interaction on a platform. This is nuts. In light of this, sharing videos on line could be construed this way for anyone. There has to be no reasonable doubt whatsoever for an act of crime to be committed. This standard appears to be lost in the UK. It is the return of the Star Chambers over there. The precedent of this was set in England with the Simon Sheppard case, a publisher, whose cartoon was downloaded off from his website, printed, and then someone slid the cartoon under a synagogue door as a joke. Sheppard spend time in prison for someone else's crime.
"[Judge] Field told Harris 'at the very least, the material you produced and published has had some influence upon the young man (Gendron)'".
The judge is not a medical practitioner, a mind reader, nor a psychiatrist. This is terribly biased and wrong.
"Linked"? How is this even relevant evidence? There's no possible way of knowing that video(s) caused (two) mass killings. It's obvious the court ruled on a anecdotal 'opinion' of a biased self-proclaimed 'expert'. No one should go to prison for something like this. There has to be no reasonable doubt whatsoever. This standard appears to be lost in the UK. It is the return of the Star Chambers over there.