Taming Terrorists but Not Natural Born Killers

This Article will explore the possibility of shifting or sharing the liabilitystemming from criminal activities to those who provide detailed directions onhow to commit those acts, when the publication in question has no otherredeeming value. This Article concludes that in some limited circumstances, the First Amendment should not preclude the imposition of civil liability for those who write and distribute speech that both advocates and facilitates harm to others. Part I of this Article reviews the First Amendment and discusses the Brandenburg test and its potential application to situations involving speechadvocating socially harmful activity. Part II argues that this approach is poorlysuited for dealing with the problems inherent in such harm-promoting speech.By accommodating only considerations that arise from the imminence of theharm, and not the nature of the speech itself, the courts have not permittedindividuals to recover in tort for harm proximately caused by such speech and intended by the speaker to cause such hann. Part III suggests that therecognition of this new category of speech would pennit courts to better address the conflict between society\u27s need to protect its citizens from violence and the First Amendment value of free expression and democratic deliberation