A man who admits he ran down a Muslim family said he did so because he believed anti-Muslim conspiracies he found on fringe websites like Alex Jones’ Infowars.
  • stopthatgirl7@kbin.social
    1183·
    11 months ago

    On the day of the killings, Veltman denied that he went out on the day with the intention of conducting murders despite the fact he had written a manifesto, put on a military helmet, a bulletproof vest, and a white shirt with a cross on it that was a reference to an online meme about crusaders killing Muslims.

    Dude is just trying to save his skin and pass the blame for what he did elsewhere.

    • fiat_lux@kbin.social
      344·
      11 months ago

      You’re right, but the blame does lie with multiple people too. Yeah, his only chance of saving his skin is if other’s responsibility somehow diminishes his own culpability, but he will soon find out this is not a zero-sum game.

      But shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater isn’t free speech and will get you a jail sentence if it creates a disaster. Infowars (and Alex Jones specifically), and other organisations (they identify libertarian and mainstream conservative content plus youtube algorithm) also need to be held to account for inflammatory speech that encourages violence; provided that it can be demonstrated that they’re pushing dangerous misinformation. Especially if they are making money doing it.

      I won’t hold my breath waiting to see that happen though.

        • fiat_lux@kbin.social
          2·
          11 months ago

          But falsely shouting “fire!” In a crowded theater isn’t free speech if it creates a disaster and/or summons emergency services in various US jurisdictions

          FTFYFMFY

          My point was more around the idea that you are/can be held responsible for the things you say rather than exact implementation requirements though.

        • fiat_lux@kbin.social
          223·
          11 months ago

          Does shouting “Fire!” In a crowded place cause people to panic and stampede?

          People who legitimately have a disability that affects their cognition are at increased risk of being abused and scammed. They are also more likely to not be able to afford help, especially when they need it most. Exploiting people’s disabilities for personal gain is not only unethical, but arguably already illegal financial exploitation.

          If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet, then… yes. They do hold some responsibility for the foreseeable risk that promoting outrage inspires outrage. At best, the liar believe their own lies, in which case they still need to show their math when claiming very specific things like “crime by Muslims is being systemically under-reported”. That’s not just an opinion like “i don’t trust Muslims” anymore, it’s a quantifiable and verifiable or falsifiable claim. There are multiple laws around fraud, libel, etc. that deal with these sorts of arguments daily.

          Just like we condemn phone scammers for preying on grandparents with dementia, it is very much not ok to steal from people who are ill and need real genuine help.

            • fiat_lux@kbin.social
              6·
              11 months ago

              The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined) and the Supreme Court overturned its previous decisions in making that ruling? Sure, it’s not a clear cut crime and would need to be its own case. That’s also why I originally qualified it with “if it creates a disaster”. I’m not suggesting immediate conviction without trial(s).

              I also think the media landscape is very different from 1969 when that ruling was made, and I disagree that calling for “revenge” against non-white people on the day of a specific rally is “abstract” like the ruling said, but that’s a topic for a different day.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                11 months ago

                The part where they would need to prove “imminent” danger (without it being defined)

                It’s been defined in case-law.

                If a person provides a steady supply of lies and manipulation with the intention of stirring up xenophobic outrage to fill their wallet

                From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

                • fiat_lux@kbin.social
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  It’s been defined in case-law.

                  It has been at least temporarily narrowed in scope by US courts, which I wouldn’t quite consider to be the same as defined - given we’re getting into the unnecessary details here. I’m not even convinced the US Supreme Court is always the best choice for ethical decision-making, let alone if the first amendment prevents all culpability for foreseeable risks.

                  I’m also not the Supreme Court, or a lawyer. Hell, I’m not even American, and neither were the victims or the defendant. In my opinion, Jones is responsible and in my opinion, there is enough ambiguity in the law for Jones’ actions to be debated in courts in legal systems across the world where his audience lives.

                  From what I can tell this typically falls under political speech and is very much protected unless there is fraud or some other crime involved.

                  In the US, from a 1st amendment standpoint, probably, yes. This is why I also mentioned libel, financial extortion and fraud though as possible crimes. Culpability / responsibility doesn’t even need to be criminal or a violation of any jurisdiction’s free speech laws though, even if it has better odds of preventing future bullshit. Infowars may not only have obligations under the jurisdiction of their local courts.

                  tl;dr shit is too complicated for social media posts written on my phone to convey with 100% accuracy for every audience member’s context. I did not intend to suggest that my opinion of responsibility matches the US Supreme Court’s in full or that the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” implies the US court system has jurisdiction over the entire concept of free speech and responsibility or a murder case in Canadian court. I apologise for not making that clearer up front. The point was around cases where speech can create clear and foreseeable risks.

            • fiat_lux@kbin.social
              111·
              11 months ago

              The same way we know who is going to commit what crime now. There are no guaranteed signs, just clues and maybe even historical patterns of behaviour. So ultimately, you don’t and can’t know for certain.

              But you do assume a portion of the population (currently estimated at 15-20%) may have medical problems that affect their daily life and provide enough accessible public welfare systems that try to help people experiencing those problems, and you also foster a culture where getting help isn’t a declaration that you’re broken or weak. You also keep an eye out for your friends and family who might have been behaving unusually or… you know, radicalising. Normal collaborative society stuff.

              None of us know when we might experience illness of any variety, including ones that affect our brains. Biology and chemistry often do weird shit, organic creatures have significant construction variation.

              Society and community is a large part of how humans have prevented unexpected problems from killing humans unnecessarily. It is also how we should be preventing people from exploiting others.

    • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
      10·
      11 months ago

      He didn’t intend to do any murdering, he just was fully prepared just in case the opportunity for some murdering came up. You know how one might pack a few snacks just in case they get peckish between meals.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 months ago

      denied that he went out on the day with the intention of conducting murders

      What did he expect, that they would respawn?

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      2·
      11 months ago

      I’m pretty sure you can’t claim a crime of passion if you put on a bulletproof vest, it’s not exactly normal attire even for NRA idiots.

  • PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    942·
    11 months ago

    These are the most important bits:

    “I consumed libertarian content, mainstream conservative content,” he said on the stand. “Then I slowly started looking at some alt-right content on YouTube, and then stumbled across some of the more fringe.”

    The content he described focused on the Great Replacement—a popular conspiracy theory among the far-right focused on minorities taking over white majority countries—and the idea that Muslim violence is under-covered by mainstream media. He said that he consumed conspiratorial content like Alex Jones’ Infowars where he found “conspiracies that Middle Eastern wars were a conspiracy to try to bring Muslim immigration into Europe.” This then led him to white nationalist content.

    • QHC@lemmy.world
      431·
      11 months ago

      Oh wow, that last part about wars in the middle east being a conspiracy is totally new to me. I suppose it’s no less unbelievable than the planet being a flat disc or moon landing hoaxes.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        11·
        11 months ago

        Check out way back machine to look at early YouTube and you’ll find so many videos with this crap and all of them had images of crusaders because those were the groups making these videos. They were organized racist Nazi fucks who built up this imagery of a new holy war. But it was too obvious the following waves racist social media posting just hid that it was coming from these fucking losers.

    • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
      26·
      11 months ago

      Fucking YouTube my people.

      I am South African. Considering a move to another country so we were watching expat videos from that country. Fuck me if YT didn’t take two searches to start serving up content about white slums and the impact of Affirmative Action on the whites of SA.

      To be clear I want to move for an adventure and to further my career. I’m mixed race and have no beef with AA, YouTube wants name to be a frustrated white person who wants to leave due to politics. Get fucked.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          13·
          11 months ago

          What exactly is confusing about this? About two weeks ago I watched an episode of a show about atheism and within minutes I started getting ads for prayer and Bible apps. I played a math help vid for my 4th grader and started getting ads from Epoch Times about the globalist trans conspiracy. I started watching the Young Turks (liberal), and got Prager-U

          YouTube ad program is targeted people with content that they don’t want.

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          12·
          11 months ago

          Actually, it’s more of an anecdote. But mainly a comment or a reply, which is kind of the point of a forum-style social media site like Lemmy or Reddit.

          In other words, unlike yours (and mine), they’re actually *contributing to the discussion.

          edit: typo

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            7·
            11 months ago

            Yours may not be contributing to the immediate discussion, but I would say that taking the time out to politely educate someone on etiquette is still contributing to the overall discussion on the forums.

            • Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
              11·
              11 months ago

              Oh if I were to contribute you little shirt bird commies would just do what you do and downvote and get nasty, because you feel you’re superior on lemmy with majority far leftists.

              So really you need not look far to find your own blatant “etiquette” violations all over the fucking place.

              So do, please come off your high horse. I’ll get a ladder.

  • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
    485·
    11 months ago

    Hey Canada, can the confessed murder of most of an entire family inspired by far right propeganda finally be enough justification to ban that content in this country?

    Seriously, can I just ask my MP this question? Can we all ask our MPs this question?

      • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
        31·
        11 months ago

        So are you apologizing for a confessed racist murderer or the idiot convincing people that Muslims need to die?

          • Szymon@lemmy.caEnglish
            31·
            11 months ago

            The excuse won’t exonerate him. It will, however, allow regulators to understand root causes and take appropriate action to prevent further occurences.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      6·
      11 months ago

      The crime he committed is extremely heinous and the Crown wants to make sure their case is bulletproof. The defense is trying to make it seem like because Veltman’s mom was abusive, he read alt-right garbage online, and took psilocybin the day before, he isn’t culpable for driving down the Afzaal family. He had no choice but to kill them, it wasn’t his fault. /s

        • letstostitosalison@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          Lawyer here. Canada also has protections against self-incrimination and it is the same in principle as the US. In many cases where the defendant does not testify the defence strategy is poking holes in the prosecutor’s case, essentially that they have not met the burden of proof.

          Keep in mind I haven’t really been following this case, just read snippets in the news. I’m guessing the prosecutor’s case is pretty solid on its own for first degree murder convictions. His lawyer determined the best way they can counter such a strong case is for him to testify. The defence strategy is probably to get a lesser conviction (second degree murder or manslaughter instead of first degree murder) or to get an NCRMD (not criminally responsible due to mental disorder). NCRMD is the “insanity defence”. His testimony about alt-right content will probably be part of his evidence to argue NCRMD.

          A finding of NCRMD is neither a conviction nor acquittal. The person will be sent to a psychiatric hospital for however long until they deem him to be safe for release into the public, probably with supervision.

      • Thrilllhause@lemmy.worldEnglish
        221·
        11 months ago

        Yep. The guys a piece of shit but pieces of shit are not born that way. That level of hate is learned.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
          66·
          11 months ago

          Yes, but it’s partly learned through conscious choice. He continued engaging with it, he chose his content.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
              53·
              11 months ago

              I think that members of a cult are partly responsible for some evil they do. Like I don’t care if you’ve been raised to believe that Warren Jeffs is a prophet, if you marry your prepubescent daughter to him you did that. And you bear some responsibility for not walking away beforehand (and frankly that’s more intense than condervativism because they will actively try to ruin your life over it). I think the people holding guns at Jonestown bore some responsibility too. David Miscavage isn’t some innocent duped by L Ron Hubbard, he chose to stick with Scientology and then act on it in evil ways. And as an adult he could’ve made a better decision.

              Some victims bear no responsibility, but once you move to doing fucked up shit to others over it you do bear some responsibility. Because you could’ve walked away at any point and while it requires a lot of strength to do it, when it comes to choosing between being strong and hurting others we have a responsibility.

              When you do a mass shooting after partaking in your own radicalization you are partly responsible for it.

                • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  22·
                  11 months ago

                  I said partly. No fucking shit Jones was influencing him. You don’t get drug addicts without both a supplier and consumer. Jones sells hate and delusion, this guy bought it and took it to deadly extremes. What I’ll also add is that jones sells normalization, militarization, and justification of it. Together they made this problem, both bear the responsibility.

      • Wodge@lemmy.worldEnglish
        18·
        11 months ago

        “My Parents taught me to be a shitty person, waah” is pretty much it.

          • Wodge@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            I was being facetious in my response, I should’ve put an /s. I’m all too aware of how well the right wing internet hole can suck you in, happened to my Dad. I’m also aware of how ingrained people’s prejudices can be because they don’t see too many people from other places after living in a pretty homogeneous suburb for a few years.

            People suck basically. Thanks for the explanation though!

    • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      11 months ago

      We 100% knew that. What I’m curious about is how this shapes legal precedent moving forward. We have legal testimony proving the stochastic terror risk to right-wing media outlets like this, which may help clamp down on this rhetoric down the road.

  • weirdwallace75@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    11 months ago

    “It isn’t my fault I was a monster! It was that nasty Alex Jones! Honest! YA GOTTA BELIEVE ME!”

    Yeah, pull the other one.