Welcome to Gaia! ::

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects printed word as well as spoken. (I think.) The idea that you could be found guilty is laughable, and I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. (I'm no safer. In the book I'm working on, I depict underage sex, murder, gang activity, and wholesale violence.)

I don't agree that producers of violence-laden materials should be held accountable for the actions of others. Such a line of thought implies that humans are inherently unintelligent, and whether or not I believe that to be so (I do), that is not among the principles upon which this nation was founded.

EDIT: I ******** love 'Salem's Lot.

Legally, you are not responsible. Speculation has no legal merit.

You are in no way responsible. If something you wrote provoked someone to go and kill people, clearly they weren't stable from the get go. It's not your problem, and there is no reason for you to feel guilty about it.

Because society will look at it as if you had never written the book, then the killer would never have committed those crimes based on the book. That, and the media needs someone to blame, and sometimes, criminals just don't cut it.

That, and likely the criminal would blame it on the book.

Some of society would, no question -- I've talked to people who refuse to read Catcher in the Rye because it supposedly influenced Chapman's murder of John Lennon, for example -- but I really think there's just as many people who are a little more practical about it. Because let's face it... if someone's going to blame J.D. Salinger for Lennon's death, then by all rights they ought to be blaming Lennon for the Tate-LaBianca murders... *shrug*

Anyway, though. I think you're right, though -- it's the idea that if that influence hadn't been there then everything would have been different. But really, we know that the book is not responsible for the murders, it's the person -- so if the book hadn't been written, the criminal would still commit the murder, he'd just end up assigning blame elsewhere.

No, I'm understanding you... but after the weekend I just had, my brain is seriously fried today, so I know I'm not being as clear as I'd like. redface

Anyway, proving a negative like that is often not possible. You can prove that something does exist by producing that thing, or offering evidence of its existence, but to prove that it doesn't exist is something else entirely, especially when that thing is essentially an emotion, like guilt.

The best way I can think of to prove that the responsibility lies with the murderer and not with an "inspiration" would be to look at the two reasonably...

On the one hand is a man. Maybe he's a sick, disturbed individual to have done what he's done, but he is a man. He is capable of reason. He is capable of deciding for himself whether he sets his alarm clock for six-thirty or for seven, what he will wear, where he will go -- even if he wears a uniform and goes to work every day, he still decides to do so.

On the other hand is a book. Though there may be individuals who believe the book is sickening, disgusting, the worst sort of filth... it's not. It's only paper. And other individuals may call it masterful or brilliant... but a book can't be brilliant. It cannot reason or deduce or make any brilliant observations. It cannot react at all, in fact; it cannot learn (its information never changes according to its experiences), cannot grow. It is just an object.

If the man is inspired by the book, that means that the man associated the book with his own idea; the book, in fact, had no part in the inpirational process at all. It was completely passive.

Oy, I hope I'm making sense here... xp My concentration keeps breaking! sweatdrop

Don't worry, I'll check the zombies hopefully in a minute -- gotta change the laundry over -- but if not then tomorrow, most likely. xd

Probably. But you also have to remember that even with a highly unstable person, it's pretty difficult to actually influence them into killing based on a book. People think that Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because he was somehow influenced by Holden Caulfield from Catcher In The Rye, but that's actually a misconception. While it's true that Chapman identified with Holden, he actually admits that that side of him (i.e. the little voices in his head that he claimed to have) was telling him not to kill Lennon. But really, when it comes down to it, he was a disturbed individual and his actions cannot be blamed on anything other than his own psychological instability. Not like that stopped tons of people from believing that Catcher In The Rye was responsible for John Lennon's assassination.