Comment Re:Precedents have been set decades ago (Score 0) 103
The thread that runs through your examples is knowingly allowing or directly facilitating known illegal activity.
It seems, you're stressing out the "knowingly" part as the distinction making a difference. But certainly, ChatGPT knew — or should have known — what the conversation was about. I've seen AI use terms like "narrative ark"...
If Google could be accused for abetting illegal drug importation, it does not seem unreasonable to go after ChatGPT in this case, not that I personally approve of either...
I asked Claude to find similar targeting of libraries or phonebook-providers in the pre-Internet era, and here are the two remotely related ones below.
The rot of criminal prosecutions of speech seems to originate from Europe...
- Remsberg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003)
- Information provider: Docusearch, Inc. — pre-internet-era commercial information broker (operated by phone and mail before going online)
- Allegation: Liam Youens paid Docusearch $154 to obtain Amy Boyer's workplace address. Docusearch obtained it through a private investigator using "pretexting" (calling Boyer's insurer under false pretenses). On October 15, 1999, Youens drove to Boyer's workplace and shot and killed her as she left work, then committed suicide. Boyer's mother sued Docusearch for wrongful death, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
- Outcome: The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that information brokers owe a duty of care to third parties who may be harmed by the information they sell, and that selling a person's workplace address to a stranger — without verifiable legitimate purpose — can create liability for foreseeable harm. The case is civil, not criminal. Docusearch settled. This is the closest analogue to a "directory publisher" being held liable for a crime committed using their information.
- Prosecuting attorney: Civil — private plaintiff (estate of Amy Boyer). No criminal charges against Docusearch. No DA involved.
- The "Anarchist Cookbook" — No prosecution despite decades of use in crimes
- Information provider: William Powell — author; Lyle Stuart, Inc. — publisher (1971)
- Allegation: The Anarchist Cookbook contains instructions for manufacturing explosives, drugs, and weapons. It has been cited in connection with numerous crimes and terrorist incidents over five decades, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine shooters, and multiple UK terrorist convictions. Despite this, no criminal prosecution was ever brought against Powell or his publishers in the United States.
- Outcome: No charges ever filed in the US. Powell spent the last decades of his life unsuccessfully trying to have the book withdrawn; the publisher refused. In the UK, mere possession of the book has been used as evidence of terrorist intent in several prosecutions of individuals (not the publisher). The book remains a key data point showing the limits of the Barnett/Paladin precedents: without proof of specific intent to assist a specific crime, criminal liability for publishers does not attach.
- Prosecuting attorney: No prosecution. N/A.