[x-post from Forum post last Friday which I put in the wrong place]
Good afternoon all,
This is the particular mission in the COD series which I referenced during our class today. https://youtu.be/gXBDkevx5lM?t=84
I can definitely see this influencing someone to commit such acts, but in terms of liability for any damage caused, I still have trouble with causation here.
In terms of criminal law, in acting for someone carrying out a similar act in reality, it seems logical to me that I would plead a mental health defence related to the defendant’s particular issues, rather than the ‘GTA defence’ we became familiar with today.
On another note, this is one of the few missions that I know of where you could do nothing in the level and you would still advance in the game. The game did not actually need your input in it (though you can see this particular player actively participate) Boyden – empty shell? Moreover, you could skip it if you so desired.
Enjoy your weekend and please go watch some happy puppy videos,
Columban
Check out theVideos of Interest to Law 423 on YouTube 
Communications Law
Join the Community!
Wow that was intense! And horrible! When you know that real attacks happen in airport like in Istanbul June 2016.
I don’t think that could really influence someone to commit such acts. I more prone to believe that the person has a kind of predisposition.
Here, the mission starts on “no Russian” (probably there is a reason in the game, however replace it by “no Canadian”)… could it be used to heighten a sense of nationalism? And contribute to radicalization and recruitment for whatever the cause his and then bring a person to act that he/she never though. Does a government can be liable if somehow it could be proven that the effect was expected, it was intentionally used for this purpose, and some damages occurred? I’m not sure about criminal liability but civil liability might be easier to reach.