I said nothing about his or her age, so let’s not bring that up again and muddy the waters.
I just looked at the ACLU statement it appears to me to be flimsy at best and awfully vague. Almost like they just needed to toss something out to get it on record.
Based on the ACLU’s statement, if I yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater and multiple people get trampled and die, I should be free to go since I ‘killed them with words’. If a girl tells invites a new boyfriend over to her house and tells him to go outside and grab some beers from the garage but neglects to tell him there’s no front porch and he falls 6 feet and breaks his neck and dies, she shouldn’t face any charges for the practical joke since she ‘killed him with her words’.
We could go on, but I think the ACLU’s statement in this case sets a dangerous precedent that would unravel any advancements we’ve started to make in cyber (and regular) bullying because most of that doesn’t involve anything physical, it’s all ‘just words’.
But if you think people have the right to urge others to commit suicide, we’re probably not going to see eye to eye on this. Just to be clear this isn’t Jack Kevorkian having someone sign something stating that they’re terminally ill, of sound mind and just ready to die, this is someone sending years of texts to a mentally ill boyfriend saying shit like “you can’t think about it You just have to do it? You said you were gonna do it like I don’t get why you arent” and “If u don’t do it now you’re never gonna do it/And u can say you’ll do it tomorrow but you probably won’t”.
This isn’t that much different than bullying. Bullying a someone that already has mental problems. It’s unfortunate the parents didn’t or couldn’t get a restraining order against her.
Sure, she has the ‘right’ to freedom of speech, but if you really want to argue that way, she wasn’t speaking in a public place. This was texting over a private network and even if that was considered ‘free speech’ it still directly lead to someone’s death.
I have the right to own a gun. If I kill someone with it, should I not face any charges based solely on the fact that I have the right to own it?
But I’m going to get over my head in a hurry trying to argue about this kind of stuff.
That makes no sense. Judges contradict each other all the time. Look at how few major cases that go to the Supreme Court result in 9-0 decisions. In 1986, they said it was legal for states to criminalize gay sex. Less than two decades later, they said the opposite.
The ACLU takes principled positions that generally get endorsed by the Court–eventually. In the meantime, they aren’t “wrong” because one trial judge says so.
I’m sure there will be appeals, but as I said, allowing her to go free because this was via text message mean mean a lot to the world of bullies. Basically, they can do anything they want, as long as they maintain the “I’m not touching you” rule.
People keep bringing up toddlers, which seems to hint at age being an issue. So does your mention of his parents and a restraining order. But I would prefer to keep it on the cleaner ground of the rights of adults.
Yes, I do think people have the right to urge others to commit suicide. Which is not the same as endorsing such behavior.
It looks like we also disagree about (verbal) bullying. I believe it should not be a crime for an adult to say online about another adult that they are ugly, boring to be around, etc.–as long as it was all matters of opinion. (If you falsely claim someone has an STD or something, that gets into slander/libel.)
Then we can ignore the toddler thing, ‘gullible elderly people’ were also mentioned. I only mentioned toddlers, along with elderly people as examples of people who were likely to do what someone else tells them to do without knowing that the other person may not have their best interests in mind.
As far as me mentioning his parents getting a restraining order, we don’t have to get hung up on that either. Pretend I was referring to him. Of course, even if he was 25, he may not have been mentally capable of thinking about breaking free of a relationship like that and it may have taken someone that was a few steps back to step in and tell him that she’s toxic or get the wheels moving.
Bullying tends to happen with kids, so the age thing will come into play there. But otherwise, yes, we’ll disagree there. Sure, an offhanded comment about someone, while nasty, is one thing. Bullying takes it to another level. Bullying drives people into depression, to suicide or at the very least can put them in some bad places for a while. There’s no reason for it.
But this wasn’t an adult saying a mean thing about another adult online. This was her spending years trying to convince him to commit suicide.
If you haven’t read the text messages, you should. It’s hundreds of messages with him saying he’s not ready and her, more or less, goading him into it. Kids, yes kids, even ‘adults’ that are only 19 or 20 or 21 etc, are still very vulnerable and very easily fall into the trap of someone manipulative.
So you think that people have the right to free speech but not unfettered free speech? That under some circumstances the actual content of speech is important? So it is only hair splitting whether exhortations to suicide are permitted or not. Personally I can’t see much difference between tormenting someone to do harm to themselves and threatening to do harm to them.
I really don’t care.
You continue to harp on the age thing. In post 19, you asked me if it would have made a difference it they were 18 instead of 17. That was the first time age was mentioned in this thread. I replied to tell you that I felt age had nothing to do with it.
In post 24 you said that people ‘keep bring up toddlers’, but continued on to make the comment that included adults saying things to other adults. I replied to tell you that toddlers were just being used as an example. And in reply to the ‘adult’ comment, I went on to say that your comment was different (not because it had to do with adults, but because the context was different).
You even twisted my mentioning his parents in to a “hint at age being an issue”.
So, yeah, we seem to be back at the age thing, but only because you brought it up at the beginning of the thread and multiple times since. If you don’t want age to have anything to do with it then knock it off. Make it about age, make them all 40, ignore the age thing, whatever. But I’m not interested in running around in circles arguing over this for the rest of the thread.
In this case, I really don’t think age plays into it. I think him having a history of depression and being suicidal in the past is probably the biggest factor
Which is which? Again, have you read the texts? I would call them ‘tormenting someone to do harm to themselves’. He was very clearly seeking help, there’s no question there, but it’s constantly, over and over and over nothing but her telling him to kill himself. That’s not what a loved one does. I understand that he was in pain, maybe this would have happened someday anyways but maybe an actual loved one would have found him actual help instead of a place to hide while he’s dying.
And she knew what she was doing was wrong. Afterwards she deleted her messages and sent new ones that made it sound like she was surprised that something happened, like she just found out and she was texting him to see if he was okay.
Yup, good thing he sought advice from a loved one.
20/20 had a interview with Roy’s aunt Kim Bozzi. That family has been through a lot trying to deal with this kid’s death.
Michelle Carter gets a slap on the wrist for her part in this boy’s death. She might serve 15 months. Assuming the courts don’t overturn the conviction.
I’m still appalled that a lawyer had the audacity to argue free speech in this case.
I agree that one heated comment is protected speech. “I wish you’d kill yourself and leave me the hell alone”. That is just spewing venom at someone. No rational person will act on that statement.
Carter texted this guy for months. Hundreds of texts. He was troubled & desperately reaching out for help. She used that vulnerability to manipulate him. She had him cornered. He felt that staying in that car was his only option.
I am with you on this ! I don’t consider it 'free speech when Carter knew her
‘b/f’ was suicidal and she kept texting him to commit suicide . She just sat and listen to the guy cry out in pain while taking his last breathe ! This is in no way the HELL free speech ! I wonder if people thinking it’s free speech would be feeling the same way if it was one of their ones ??!!
I haven’t followed this case at all besides little snippets here and there. Did the girl have some sort of semi-plausible and morally defensible defense? Like saying she was just trying to use reverse psychology to get him to stop his suicidal ideations and never thought he’d actually do it?
Did she physically force him to read the texts? Could he not have avoided her texts? Did she threaten him with harm if he didn’t kill himself? Did she physically force him to kill himself?
You’re right, bullies will be bullies and the weak, the mentally ill, the minorities (specifically gay teens), the kids in grade school that can’t or won’t stand up for themselves and become natural victims…let’s just let them kill themselves because bullies need protection and victims are dum because they’re so stupid.
Does that about sum it up?
As for free speech, is it free speech when it’s sent over private network? Is it harassment when it’s hundreds of messages over the course of years? Couldn’t the state charge her with something since she knew when and where he was doing this and she didn’t call 911? Isn’t there some kind of fraud since she deleted all the messages from her phone in an attempt to cover it up?
Regardless of what happens in this case, I’d imagine if the family wants to pursue it, they won’t have much of a problem with a civil suit for wrongful death.
If by “sum it up” you mean a completely different type of bullying that has physical presence, physical threats, and the inability to ignore those threats, then I guess so :rolleyes:
Good thing we’re on the same page. For the record, I never used any specific examples and in your post you asked if she used any of those things. Perhaps you should read up on the case as well as some of the cyberbullying cases that have resulted in suicide.
Fraud laws are essentially the criminalization of words that are intended to manipulate people into giving the perpetrator money. I’ve never heard of anyone who suggests that fraud laws are unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.
In this case, the judge found that the defendant manipulated someone into killing themselves. Now, setting aside the precise details of how the manslaughter statute is written, as a general principle, I would say that if it can be criminalized to talk someone out of their money, then I think it is reasonable to criminalize talking someone out of their life.
I assume you disagree, but I am interested in your view of why fraud statutes haven’t laid down a principle on this general matter that have been long accepted.