There are free speech issues as well. "There are strong First Amendment limits on imposing liability for such information," said Goldman.
Determining whether fault lay with the person acting on the information or the publisher of the information, or both, could also be difficult.
The instructions at PyroElectro.com were posted with a disclaimer, which did not appear on the YouTube video nor the Digg submission, stating the project could be dangerous and is only intended for educational purposes. It also warns someone could be seriously injured.
"I don't think the disclaimer makes a lot of difference legally," said Goldman. "But it does reinforce that the real harm occurred when someone tried to replicate the process rather than merely publishing information about the process."
Commentators in the Digg thread were amused, with one of them expressing on March 19th the intent to give it a try. The instructions were submitted to Digg on March 18th, the same day the video was posted on YouTube. One Digger warned, though, that the technique was highly dangerous and stupid, especially if the target of the prank had an undiagnosed heart problem.
But does intent to prank your friends, especially from a 14 year old, constitute grounds for arrest? Perhaps these days, it does.
"Back in the old days," said Goldman, "pranks were just pranks. Now, they are crimes. I'm not sure if that change is good or bad, but it's definitely occurred."
PyroElectro did not respond to request for comment in time for publication.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!