0

In a recent question, (Why aren't email providers liable in some way or another for scams operated via accounts on their domains?), the poster suggested that:

A real life equivalent might seem to be a driver who waits for the hitchhiker they picked up while the latter does a bank heist, and continues on with their passenger after they're done. Surely such a well meaning albeit naive driver wouldn't stand a chance in court if they said that it's because they've a section 230-like protection.

But is the driver actually committing a crime if they were actually unaware that the hitchhiker in the example was robbing the bank (e.g. if he stops in quickly at the bank, and leaves quietly, with the driver completely unaware)

1

If you know you are an accessory; if you don’t you aren’t

Present your evidence and the police, then the prosecutor then the jury will decide if you knew or not.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.