This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com/DUBIOUS today to get 10% off your first month of therapy.

In the "Cannibal Cop" case, Gilberto Valle was accused of using online forums to discuss disturbing cannibalistic ideation with other users: Moody Blues, Christopher Ashe, Michael Van Hise, and Richard Meltz – also a former policeman. If you like our content, please become a patron to get all our episodes ad-free.

The prosecution argued that Valle's online conversations were not just fantasies but actual plans to commit crimes. However, Valle's defense team claimed that his discussions were merely fantasy role-play, and he had no intention of carrying out any real harm. Ultimately, in 2013, Valle was found guilty of conspiracy charges, but the conviction was overturned on appeal in 2014, with the court ruling that his actions did not constitute a true conspiracy.¹

In the United States v. Valle case, the legal system grappled with the boundaries between fantasy and intent to commit a crime. The case raised complex questions regarding online communication, freedom of speech, and the interpretation of criminal conspiracy. While the prosecution argued that Valle's online discussions were evidence of a genuine plan to harm others, the defense asserted that they were simply dark fantasies that should be protected under the First Amendment. The legal proceedings shed light on the challenges of distinguishing between genuine criminal intent and disturbing but ultimately harmless expressions, particularly in the context of online interactions.²