TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Hit Man Manual From:Tim Altom <taltom -at- IQUEST -dot- NET> Date:Wed, 12 Nov 1997 11:13:14 -0600
I just caught a short story in the paper about Paladin Press being sued for
publishing its book on techniques for being a hit man. Somebody bought it
and used the techniques to kill a woman. Her estate's suing Paladin.
Now, I'd imagine that few of us write murder manuals (although thoughts of
murder do creep in from time to time during the process) but the story mused
about the wider meaning of the appeals ruling that threw out Paladin's claim
of First Amendment protection. Websites about picking locks and avoiding
taxes could be next. And it started me thinking about even wider potential.
I know that over the years I've had to put in safety messages that could, if
taken out of context by an unscrupulous rogue, be used as a recipe for
destruction. For example, saying "Mixing these two chemicals could result in
an explosion, toxic gas, and attendant death of bystanders" is just another
way of telling a would-be terrorist "Mix these, stand well back, and enjoy
the fun". Almost any warning about poisons, toxins, radiation, or biohazards
could be used this way. And it would be almost impossible to skirt the
subject without eliminating all the warning benefits, too.
Granted, it's a ways from Paladin's book to a manual, but are we liable if a
scumball uses information we've innocently provided as a means of
destruction? Are we presumed to know better than to provide such
information? Are we in the position, as the law so quaintly puts it, "knew
or should have known"? We are, after all, the professionals here, and the
law might well presume that we should have been the ones to anticipate such
tragic consequences. We're probably not criminally liable in any case, but
civil suits are a much different animal, requiring far different standards
of proof and inference.
The Paladin appeals court is in Virginia, by the way. Paladin is
headquartered in Colorado. And just to be strictly precise, all the appeals
court decided was that Paladin's book wasn't covered by the First Amendment.
Everything else is still up in the air. So I'd suppose our manuals aren't
covered, either.
Tim Altom
Vice President, Simply Written, Inc.
317.899.5882 (voice) 317.899.5987 (fax)
FrameMaker support ForeHelp support
FrameMaker Conversions
PDF Consulting and Production
