Google's removed all mentions of an Intercept investigation from Search

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

there's a fair amount of ambiguity because they're talking about the ability to qualify for safe harbors in general, presumably mixed together with the ability to qualify in a specific case, without drawing that distinction explicitly.

> I think you're actually giving a consequentalist account in both examples, just one time collectively and the other individually.

That's an interesting point, so let me revise my example. If we only considered intentions and not outcomes, the civil penalty would depend on how much damage the perpetrator intended to inflict (interpreted in monetary terms) by throwing the stone, multiplied by what the perpetrator believed to be the probability that the stone would hit the victim. The amount of the civil penalty could be wildly different from the victim's actual losses.

A financial system could be set up to ensure that the victim would always be compensated for their actual losses, while the perpetrator would always pay an amount that scales with the monetary interpretation of their moral culpability. There would be no guarantee that the incoming payments would equal the outgoing payments.

I don't think it's possible to implement this system, because there is no way to determine the required numbers with a reasonable degree of accuracy. As long as intent is established, courts rely on outcomes to determine judgments when the extent of the intent is unclear.

> My point is rather that for criminal culpability to exist, there needs to be intent. And (excuse me if this is somewhat inaccurate because I'm not from a common law region), in general a 'guilty mind' is a requirement in criminal law, no?

Yes, intent is an important factor in criminal cases. I'm not trying to argue that intent doesn't matter in court, because intent does matter. My point is that, for a legal system to be practical, outcomes also have to be taken into consideration.

> Insofar as people receive lesser judgements for crimes without adverse outcomes the argument is that the better outcome reflects less willingness to commit or go through with a crime.

Outcomes aren't necessarily a good approximation for intent. A perpetrator who is more competent at executing crimes would generate more adverse outcomes, while an equally willing but less competent perpetrator would generate fewer adverse outcomes. The more competent perpetrator should receive a greater sentence, but the reasoning would be based on the perpetrator's greater harm to society rather than their intent.

> To take an extreme example, no jurisdiction I'm aware of punishes attempted murder substantially less severely than actual murder even if the outcome is that there's no harm done at all. Likewise an accidental death is not a crime.

The counterpoint is that, at least in the U.S., states differ on whether attempted assaults are recognized as crimes, and whether assault charges require actual injury. There are related charges that vary per state, so I'm not able to make a generalization on the difference between attempted crimes and successful crimes.

It's called "mens rea"

Accusing someone of bigotry while arguing that their speech shouldn't be censored is not inconsistent with the position that their speech shouldn't be censored. It's just answering speech with more speech.

His "support for Putin" is some kind of farce where he'll e.g. speak approvingly of Snowden being granted asylum and this is taken as proof of loyalty to the Kremlin.

He appears on Tucker Carlson periodically, typically to advocate for Assange. It's not obvious why saying the same things he does anywhere else is to be condemned just because he's saying them to the audience of Fox. Should we not be trying to convince them of anything? Why is that bad?

He consistently calls out CNN/NYT/WaPo/etc. when they get something wrong, presumably because these are the media he actually reads.

No one seriously denies that Russia attempts to influence US elections, as they always have in every election for decades. What many deny, because there is no credible evidence of it, is that Trump colluded with Russia. The people providing non-credible "evidence" of this have since been caught out as frauds and one is currently under indictment for lying to the FBI.

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Also the way you use correlation isn't causation is disengenous. By your usage apples falling down is correlation not causation. The whole point about that statement is that we should not infer causation if we don't have a good understanding of why the causal relationship exists. In this case we do.