You should find out what state they live in, and see if that state has cyber bullying laws. Then contact the police and have them arrested.
That would definitely make me a hypocrite.
Maybe, but you would be using the existing laws to protect someone’s feelings. That overrides any sense of hypocrisy you might feel.
I don’t even think you know what the fuck you’re talking about any more.
You very clearly stated earlier that non-physical bullying wasn’t a thing. Later, you very clearly stated that “I didn’t say it wasn’t a “thing” I think it’s a stupid thing.”.
It’s like arguing with Dio when he’d forget what he’d say and then flat out deny it even when quoted. Can we call this the Manson show?
I’m still not the fucking internet police. I also think drinking and driving is bad, but I don’t hang around in bars trying to wrestle car keys away from people. Just cuz I think something is wrong or bad or illegal, I’m not sure what logic your brain is going through that makes you leap to the conclusion that I’m therefore required to put an end to it.
Actually, I’m calling you on that.
*There are always threads in the Pit that are “bullying” Why don’t you go into them and tell people to stop? *
Why do you think that I should have to go to the pit and tell people to stop based on anything I said here? Or more generally, just because I think cyber-bullying is real, why should I be required to end it?
So you don’t actually care about what you consider bullying
Why, exactly, do you think that since I’m not going to make an attempt to stop what you’ve decided is bullying in the SDMB pit, that I therefore don’t actually care about what I consider bullying?
If you don’t care, why do you keep bringing it up?
The kid from the original story suffered physical harm which I believe is a direct result of the girl’s actions. I don’t know what emotional harm he suffered, but it seems very plausible that she’s also responsible for that.
I am mailing it probably tomorrow.
I’m sorry to hear that. That’s not right.
I notice that no one ever seems to have any response to the stuff I quoted from West Virginia v. Barnett. I’m going to take that as a tacit admission that applying the law this way is unconstitutional by the applicable SCOTUS precedents, even if you might wish for a constitutional amendment making it otherwise.
Thanks for this. Fascinating stuff. IMO a lot of it makes **TruCelt’s **case pretty well. Here are some annotated “highlights” of the text conversations (just stuff I found while skimming; I didn’t read everything by any means):
6-1-14
Reading this first couple pages paints a picture of someone who genuinely cared for Conrad and seemed to be trying harder to help him than he was to help her–or himself.
6-18-14
6-29-14
A little later that day, we learn that Conrad emotionally blackmailed Michelle to keep her from going to his parents or someone else to warn that he is contemplating suicide:
He also tells her, basically, to just stop trying to help him in the socially prescribed way, of trying to keep him from killing himself:
June 29 is really a key transitional day, as it also includes this crucial exchange:
7-1-14
Another key moment:
Maybe the most frustrating thing is that earlier on July 1, he talks about how he smoked weed and it basically worked as medicinal marijuana:
I haven’t read every message, but I’ve read a lot of it, and this is the only moment I saw where it really looked like there was hope for the kid. And Michelle squashes it! D’oh. But she does so not–I believe–because of any homicidal agenda, but because she has internalized a lot of DARE propaganda:
Siiigghhh. Not only did he sound more hopeful, he also had some fight in him for the first time! But she persisted with her “just say no” routine, and he finally gave up.
7-7-14
Does this really fit the description so many of painted, of a guy reluctant to end his life and a girlfriend sadistically egging him on? Looks to me like she still is saying the best route would be to seek help, but he won’t have any of it–so in her naïve, teenage way, she is just trying to help him do what he wants. From earlier in that conversation on July 7:
I think this fits very well into the idea that he was kind of a toxic parasite dragging her down. She had her own issues, she wanted both of them to seek help, but he wasn’t into that approach. And so both to stop being dragged down by him, and because she cared about him and was more and more convinced by his negativity that this was the only possible release from his pain, she took on the role of a kind of coach, or a “you can do it!” cheerleader.
Keep in mind that at this point he had already tried and failed (with a plastic bag, sounds like), and (also on July 7) expressed his intense fear of failing in a way that leaves him crippled or some kind of vegetable:
7-8-14
7-9-14
7-10-14
Conrad is out in his truck, where he has brought a generator to make the carbon monoxide.
At this point, I can’t blame her for thinking maybe he was just dicking her around, talking suicide as a way to manipulate her emotionally.
Conviction upheld for woman who urged boyfriend’s suicide
I assume that this will be appealed all the way up to the SCOTUS, tho.
Would like to see this apply to a wide variety of school bullying. Although it may be difficult to prove cause and effect in some cases.
That’s an understatement! I continue to believe that people have the right to tell other people things, even if they are horrible things we would never want them to say.
nm
Does this include fraud? How do you distinguish between manipulating someone to take their money (which pretty much everyone thinks is a crime) and manipulating them for the specific purpose that they commit suicide?
I’m curious if you see one differently than the other, and if so, why.
Words have consequences.
This wasn’t a random, why don’t you go kill yourself? epithet directed at a stranger. That is protected by free speech.
Michelle Carter took advantage of a close relationship with a deeply troubled young man. She manipulated him into suicide.
This is not protected by free speech. I’m thankful the courts see it that way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/crime/michelle-carter-suicide-text-case-urging-boyfriend-suicide-texts/amp/
How do you feel about penalties for inciting a riot? Urging an angry mob to burn down a building or kill a person is a horrible thing we would never want someone to say. And it is, I think, quite reasonably illegal.
Is committing suicide a crime in Massachusetts?
Geez, she only got 2 1/2 years, and only had to do 15 months of it in actual prison. If she had just gone in and done her time when she was sentenced, she’d be out on probation by now.
I wonder if the “lock her up!” camp has read the text excerpts I quoted above? :dubious:
Many times previously she had tried to encourage him not to kill himself, to get help. He rebuffed these efforts.
I do see them differently. She was not lying to him for her financial benefit. Those who believe this is a crime are saying that if her honest opinion is that his emotional pain makes suicide the best option, she is legally obligated to lie. Really? What other things are people required to lie about, at the penalty of prosecution for being honest?
My father hanged himself in the woods. I strenuously reject the idea that his doing so was in any way comparable to burning down a building or killing someone. He was a nonviolent man.
Sometimes it’s better to take the punishment and get it over.
Instead Carter has wasted time from her life for nothing. Has she been under bail restrictions this entire time? Sometimes bail with a ankle bracelet can pretty much be house arrest.
Meanwhile her lawyers pocket a nice fee while she needlessly twists in the wind.
She got off lucky with a slap on the wrist. Appealing just extends the case to her detriment.
That may be true for her personally. But it’s important for society at large that this be contested in the courts and hopefully overturned as a violation of her First Amendment right to free expression.
Here is the logical inconsistency with the decision. Suppose instead of texting, she was present and saying these things out loud. If the young man was hearing these things, would anyone suggest that he could pull out a gun and shoot her in self defense?
Of course not. Why? Because the reason is that he could “defend himself” simply by not following her directives. And for that reason, her words did not “cause” his death. Therefore she is not guilty of any form of homicide.
I don’t necessarily view this as a free speech issue, but a causation issue. If we are going to hold that words can “cause” a death under these circumstances, then we must also agree that lethal force is appropriate to be consistent.