Free speech and its manslaughter attempts: a First Amendment thread.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Free speech and its manslaughter attempts: a First Amendment thread.

«‹›2 »

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

roomforthetuna posted:

Well, that was my point, you seem to be agreeing.
The judge decided to call it "involuntary manslaughter" which seems like a pretty clear example of a thing that it really isn't.

Except the judgement does not reside on simple presentation of texts, but establishes motive and proximity to the outcome by establishing premeditation and willful conspiracy all the way through to actions taken at the time of death that were intentful and with foreseeable consequence. The judge's verdict is more nuanced than your reductive presentation and thus no reason to accept fears of a slippery slope. The fact that it was suicide is only a matter of circumstance as the chosen method of enacting a premeditated predatory campaign of psychological abuse coupled with deliberate actions in proximity to the event with desire to achieve the foreseeable result of death with intent to derive personal gain.

# ? Jun 18, 2017 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 05:31

ArgumentatumE.C.T.: Nov 5, 2016; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet.

# ? Jun 18, 2017 22:20

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

archangelwar posted:

Except the judgement does not reside on simple presentation of texts, but establishes motive and proximity to the outcome by establishing premeditation and willful conspiracy all the way through to actions taken at the time of death that were intentful and with foreseeable consequence. The judge's verdict is more nuanced than your reductive presentation and thus no reason to accept fears of a slippery slope. The fact that it was suicide is only a matter of circumstance as the chosen method of enacting a premeditated predatory campaign of psychological abuse coupled with deliberate actions in proximity to the event with desire to achieve the foreseeable result of death with intent to derive personal gain.

As I said, I'm totally in agreement with the idea that what she did should be criminal. And the thing you describe is a totally fine description both of what she did and of a thing that should be a crime. But (and correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't seem like it matches a description of "involuntary manslaughter".

My understanding is that that was the selected crime because she knew he was killing himself and didn't call for help, which can be treated as "criminal negligence" leading to his death, and such negligence puts it in the involuntary manslaughter bucket, so this law technically does apply, but it's gross because it's really only covering the much less ethically wrong part of her actions (the inaction!), and could almost equally legitimately apply to any members of his family who knew he was suicidal and didn't get him sectioned, for example.

Bending that law to make it apply here both makes relatively innocent people into criminals, and doesn't really set a good precedent of criminalizing the girl's actions - had she not been communicating with him during the suicide the loophole the judge used to get a conviction wouldn't apply.

Not that the judge had a lot of choice, because there isn't (at least not as far as I know) a law that covers the more horrible aspects of her actions. Getting such a law on the books seems like something that should be pursued in case of future similar cases.

# ? Jun 19, 2017 01:20

Yardbomb: Jul 11, 2011; What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?

ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:

You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet.

poo poo on absolutely everyone that would harass someone into suicide :shrug:

# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:00

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Here is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtruling on this case:
http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf?ts=1467383517

And fun bit from this discussion, for the "must have an explicit law!" crowd.

quote:

...

"Manslaughter is a common-law crime that has not been codified
by statute in Massachusetts" (citation omitted). Commonwealth
v. Rodriquez, 461 Mass. 100, 106 (2011). General Laws c. 265,
� 13, does not describe the crime; instead, it sets out only the
punishment, while the elements of the crime are created as part
of the common law. Under common law, conduct similar to that of
the defendant has been deemed unlawful, see Persampieri v.
Commonwealth, 343 Mass. 19, 22-23 (1961) (jury warranted in
convicting defendant of involuntary manslaughter where he
provided wife with gun, taunted her, and encouraged her to
commit suicide, resulting in her killing herself), and it is
therefore not objectively vague.

# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:02

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

OddObserver posted:

And fun bit from this discussion, for the "must have an explicit law!" crowd.

That seems reasonable, and (despite my earlier remarks) I generally appreciate the idea of not codifying laws and instead doing something more like "it's a crime if everyone agrees it's a crime", though it would typically be nicer to have a jury involved if you're going to use that method.

But at that point, and given the quote, it seems weird to have called it involuntary manslaughter. Other than based on the fact that a jury did that in another similar case, which just makes it "now both cases are weird, that was a bad precedent". Unless the previous time it actually was unintentional, like if the guy's defense was "I didn't mean for her to actually do it", which doesn't seem to have been plausible for this recent case.

# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:18

BirdOfPlay: Feb 19, 2012; THUNDERDOME LOSER

roomforthetuna posted:

That seems reasonable, and (despite my earlier remarks) I generally appreciate the idea of not codifying laws and instead doing something more like "it's a crime if everyone agrees it's a crime", though it would typically be nicer to have a jury involved if you're going to use that method.

But at that point, and given the quote, it seems weird to have called it involuntary manslaughter. Other than based on the fact that a jury did that in another similar case, which just makes it "now both cases are weird, that was a bad precedent". Unless the previous time it actually was unintentional, like if the guy's defense was "I didn't mean for her to actually do it", which doesn't seem to have been plausible for this recent case.

It's worth noting that Persampieri v Massachusetts was not decided via jury; Persampieri plead guilty to manslaughter after being indicted on 2nd degree murder. The case cited was for a writ of error for the original trial claiming that the indictment and, thus, conviction were in error. The decision not only dismisses that claim but states that it was sufficient for first degree murder. Further, the decision ends with a restatement of the facts of the case and concludes:

quote:

The stipulation, for reasons stated above, is no part of the record in a writ of error, but even if it were properly before us, it would not change the result. The facts revealed in the stipulation were sufficient, we think, to have warranted a jury in returning a verdict of manslaughter. The principles governing involuntary manslaughter are set forth at length in Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 , 396-401, and in Commonwealth v. Bouvier, 316 Mass. 489 , 494-495, and need not be repeated. We are of the opinion that the petitioner's conduct could be found to be criminally wanton or reckless. We do not decide whether the stipulated facts might warrant a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The petitioner's wife was emotionally disturbed, she had been drinking, and she had threatened to kill herself. The petitioner, instead of trying to bring her to her senses, taunted her, told her where the gun was, loaded it for her, saw that the safety was off, and told her the means by which she could pull the trigger. He thus showed a reckless disregard of his wife's safety and the possible consequences of his conduct.

This matches nicely with the final remarks from the ruling by the Supreme Justice Court.

# ? Jun 19, 2017 03:42

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine!

# ? Jun 19, 2017 07:14

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:

You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet.

You sure do seem unaware this chick really wanted a dude to die.

# ? Jun 19, 2017 23:30

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

BattleMoose posted:

My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine!

I have good news: the guy who have you that av was permabanned.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 00:33

BattleMoose: Jun 16, 2010

rudatron posted:

I have good news: the guy who have you that av was permabanned.

How do you know this? Or find this out?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 03:10

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Yeah I don't get the free speech angle. It's trivial to point out that directing crimes via speech isn't protected otherwise major categories of crime would be un-prosecutable (mob bosses, many white collar crimes etc).

The thing that's under attack is free will. But the circumstances in this case point to sustained and purposeful encouragement for months including the very last moments.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 03:29

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Sorry if this was already covered but it wasn't in the op, what evidence did the prosecution present that they were ever going steady?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 09:12

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

Sorry if this was already covered but it wasn't in the op, what evidence did the prosecution present that they were ever going steady?

Is that really pertinent to anything?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 13:28

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

BattleMoose posted:

How do you know this? Or find this out?

Some of the texts are transcribed in iirc the state court's denial of motion to dismiss that was linked here and daaaaaamn.

http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf?ts=1467383517

quote:

3 On July 8, 2014, between 8:09 P.M. and 8:18 P.M., the
defendant and victim exchanged the following text messages:
Defendant: "So are you sure you don't wanna [kill
yourself] tonight?"
Victim: "what do you mean am I sure?"
Defendant: "Like, are you definitely not doing it
tonight?"
Victim: "Idk yet I'll let you know"
Defendant: "Because I'll stay up with you if you wanna do
it tonight"
Victim: "another day wouldn't hurt"
5
as to when and how he should kill himself,4 assuaged his concerns
over killing himself,5 and chastised him when he delayed doing
Defendant: "You can't keep pushing it off, tho, that's all
you keep doing"
4 The defendant helped the victim determine the method he
eventually used to kill himself. On July 7, 2014, between
10:57 P.M. and 11:04 P.M., they exchanged the following text
messages:
Defendant: "Well there's more ways to make CO. Google
ways to make it. . . "
Victim: "Omg"
Defendant: "What"
Victim: "portable generator that's it"
On July 11, 2014, at 5:13 P.M., the defendant sent the
victim the following text message: " . . . Well in my opinion,
I think u should do the generator because I don't know much
about the pump and with a generator u can't fail"
On July 12, 2014, between 4:25 A.M. and 4:34 A.M., they
exchanged the following text messages:
Defendant: "So I guess you aren't gonna do it then, all
that for nothing"
Defendant: "I'm just confused like you were so ready and
determined"
Victim: "I am gonna eventually"
Victim: "I really don't know what I'm waiting for. . but
I have everything lined up"
Defendant: "No, you're not, Conrad. Last night was it.
You keep pushing it off and you say you'll do it but u never do.
Its always gonna be that way if u don't take action"
Defendant: "You're just making it harder on yourself by
pushing it off, you just have to do it"
6
Defendant: "Do u wanna do it now?"
Victim: "Is it too late?"
Victim: "Idkk it's already light outside"
Victim: I'm gonna go back to sleep, love you I'll text you
tomorrow"
Defendant: "No? Its probably the best time now because
everyone's sleeping. Just go somewhere in your truck. And no
one's really out right now because it's an awkward time"
Defendant: "If u don't do it now you're never gonna do it"
Defendant: "And u can say you'll do it tomorrow but you
probably won't"
5 During the evening of July 11, 2014, and morning of July
12, 2014, the victim and the defendant exchanged the following
text messages:
Victim: "I'm just to sensitive. I want my family to know
there was nothing they could do. I am entrapped in my own
thoughts"
Victim: "like no I would be happy if they had no guilt
about it. because I have a bad feeling tht this is going to
create a lot of depression between my parents/sisters"
Victim: "i'm overthinking everything. . gently caress. I gotta
stop and just do it"
Defendant: "I think your parents know you're in a really
bad place. Im not saying they want you to do it, but I honestly
feel like they can except it. They know there's nothing they
can do, they've tried helping, everyone's tried. But there's a
point that comes where there isn't anything anyone can do to
save you, not even yourself, and you've hit that point and I
think your parents know you've hit that point. You said you're
mom saw a suicide thing on your computer and she didn't say
anything. I think she knows it's on your mind and she's
prepared for it"
7
Defendant: Everyone will be sad for a while, but they will
get over it and move on. They won't be in depression I won't
let that happen. They know how sad you are and they know that
you're doing this to be happy, and I think they will understand
and accept it. They'll always carry u in their hearts"
. . .
Victim: "i don't want anyone hurt in the process though"
Victim: "I meant when they open the door, all the carbon
monoxide is gonna come out they can't see it or smell it.
whoever opens the door"
Defendant: "They will see the generator and know that you
died of CO. . . ."
. . .
Victim: "hey can you do me a favor"
Defendant: "Yes of course"
Victim: "just be there for my family "
Defendant: "Conrad, of course I will be there for your
family. I will help them as much as I can to get thru this, ill
tell them about how amazing their son/brother truly was"
. . .
Victim: "Idk I'm freaking out again"
Victim: I'm overthinking"
Defendant: "I thought you wanted to do this. The time is
right and you're ready, you just need to do it! You can't keep
living this way. You just need to do it like you did last time
and not think about it and just do it babe. You can't keep
doing this every day"
Victim: "I do want to. but like I'm freaking for my
family. I guess"
Victim: "idkkk"
8
so.6 The theme of those text messages can be summed up in the
phrase used by the defendant four times between July 11 and July
Defendant: "Conrad. I told you I'll take care of them.
Everyone will take care of them to make sure they won't be alone
and people will help them get thru it. We talked about this,
they will be okay and accept it. People who commit suicide
don't think this much and they just do it"
6 At various times between July 4, 2014, and July 12, 2014,
the defendant and the victim exchanged several text messages:
Defendant: "You're gonna have to prove me wrong because I
just don't think you really want this. You just keeps pushing
it off to another night and say you'll do it but you never do"
. . .
Defendant: "SEE THAT�S WHAT I MEAN. YOU KEEP PUSHING IT
OFF! You just said you were gonna do it tonight and now you're
saying eventually. . . ."
. . .
Defendant: "But I bet you're gonna be like 'oh, it didn't
work because I didn't tape the tube right or something like
that' . . . I bet you're gonna say an excuse like that"
. . .
Defendant: "Do you have the generator?"
Victim: "not yet lol"
Defendant: "WELL WHEN ARE YOU GETTING IT"
. . .
Defendant: "You better not be bull shiting me and saying
you're gonna do this and then purposely get caught"
. . .
Defendant: "You just need to do it Conrad or I'm gonna get
you help"
9
12, 2014 (the day on which the victim committed suicide): "You
just [have] to do it."
Cellular telephone records that were presented to the grand
jury revealed that the victim and defendant also had two
cellular telephone conversations at the time during which police
believe that the victim was in his truck committing suicide.7
The content of those cellular telephone conversations is only
available as reported by the defendant to her friend, Samantha
Boardman. After the victim's death, the defendant sent a text
message to Boardman explaining that, at one point during the
Defendant: "You can't keep doing this everyday"
Victim: "Okay I'm gonna do it today"
Defendant: "Do you promise"
Victim: "I promise babe"
Victim: "I have to now"
Defendant: "Like right now?"
Victim: "where do I go? "
Defendant: "And u can't break a promise. And just go in a
quiet parking lot or something" (emphasis added).
7 One call, at 6:28 P.M. on July 12, came from the victim's
cellular telephone and the other, at 7:12 P.M., came from the
defendant's cellular telephone. Each call lasted over forty
minutes.
10
suicide, the victim got out of his truck because he was
"scared," and the defendant commanded him to get back in.8
It was apparent that the defendant understood the
repercussions of her role in the victim's death. Prior to his
suicide, the defendant sought (apparently unsuccessfully) to
have the victim delete the text messages between the two, and
after learning that the police were looking through the victim's
cellular telephone, the defendant sent the following text
message to Boardman: "Sam, [the police] read my messages with
him I'm done. His family will hate me and I can go to jail."

# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:02

Endorph: Jul 22, 2009

but see, it's illegal to be mean online now

# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:08

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

BattleMoose posted:

My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine!

Just want to point out the dude in that avatar has probably done more good work for people than most Americans and using him as an insult (regardless of using "retard" as an pejorative) is really, really lovely.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:46

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Who What Now posted:

Is that really pertinent to anything?

The degree of the relationship was absolutely incredibly relevant.

This is a bad thread because most the people don't actually have a single clue beyond their feels on the topic, which makes for a pretty boring thread. In the real world most legal professionals were very much divided on this so it's clearly not a cut and dried thing legally.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:17

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

roomforthetuna posted:

Well, that was my point, you seem to be agreeing.
The judge decided to call it "involuntary manslaughter" which seems like a pretty clear example of a thing that it really isn't.
What it is is "deliberately and maliciously persuading someone to commit suicide", and there's no crime for that. The concern is that if someone decides that that is a crime, whether by writing an appropriate law or by setting a precedent that this act is now going to be legally a subset of "involuntary manslaughter", whether that law would also cover "accidentally persuading someone to commit suicide" or "deliberately but benevolently persuading someone to commit suicide" or "attempted persuading someone to commit suicide".

Despite the title this is mainly about the case in the OP:

http://seriouspod.com/sio51-andrew-torrez-manslaughter-philando-castile-michelle-carter/

It's by the openargs guys it's really good and they discuss the things you are questioning.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:21

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

The degree of the relationship was absolutely incredibly relevant.

Would he somehow be less dead and she be less responsible if they weren't dating?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:30

BirdOfPlay: Feb 19, 2012; THUNDERDOME LOSER

Who What Now posted:

Would he somehow be less dead and she be less responsible if they weren't dating?

He wouldn't be dead at all.

Unless this is some sort of "everything happened BUT they weren't dating" question, which makes about as much sense as "Hitler BUT not crazy" scenarios. It's the relationship they had that allowed as much contact and trust that was needed for her to do this.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 17:11

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

BirdOfPlay posted:

He wouldn't be dead at all.

Unless this is some sort of "everything happened BUT they weren't dating" question, which makes about as much sense as "Hitler BUT not crazy" scenarios. It's the relationship they had that allowed as much contact and trust that was needed for her to do this.

You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 17:25

BirdOfPlay: Feb 19, 2012; THUNDERDOME LOSER

Who What Now posted:

You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before?

Your friends are typically more at a distance than your SO. Have you ever had one before?

What is the crux of your complaint here? That them dating is immaterial to the case?

# ? Jun 20, 2017 18:22

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

BirdOfPlay posted:

Your friends are typically more at a distance than your SO. Have you ever had one before?

I'm married.

quote:

What is the crux of your complaint here? That them dating is immaterial to the case?

Yes. Do you think it's literally impossible for a non-SO to convince somebody to do something. Because that would be pretty difficult to demonstrate and thus be a really dumb position to have.

# ? Jun 20, 2017 19:10

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

Who What Now posted:

Yes. Do you think it's literally impossible for a non-SO to convince somebody to do something. Because that would be pretty difficult to demonstrate and thus be a really dumb position to have.

I think you're black-and-whiting it too much here. That they were dating is material because it's evidence that she was in a position to be a strong influence on his decisions. This doesn't imply that there couldn't be different evidence for that if they weren't dating, and it's not very usefully material in this particular case because there's much more tangible evidence that overwhelms its relevance, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant at all.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 00:56

Stinky_Pete: Aug 16, 2015; Stinkier than your average bear; Lipstick Apathy

Nevvy Z posted:

This terrible girl convinced her boyfriend to get back in his poison truck with horrible abuse and didn't get away with it. Some people are unhappy about this on principle.

But this was pretty loving awful. As this article I read admits.

I found the judges argument reasonable.

I would go so far as to say the victim's fragile state of mind plus the fact that he was suffering from poisoning at the time makes it analogous to someone convincing their senile grandmother to take a walk on the freeway. But it's... "just words".

Ah, some are mounting the Jonestown defense.

Dead men tell no tales so whose free speech is really being taken away

makes you think

College kids ain't got nothin on cops and Zimmermans

# ? Jun 21, 2017 01:37

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

Hey OP, wasn't clear if you made the thread to talk about the First Amendment in general or that specific case. If the former's the case then there's been another Supreme Court ruling.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/victory-slants-are-officially-rock-stars-first-amendment

quote:

The Supreme Court today struck down portions of the Lanham Act, a 1946 federal trademark law that allowed the government to deny �offensive� trademarks as a violation of trademark holders� free speech rights. Agreeing with arguments made by the ACLU in its brief to the court, the justices held that the First Amendment prevents the government from withholding a substantial government benefit just because it doesn�t like what you have to say.

The court�s ruling makes a second, less formal determination: The Chinatown dance-rock band The Slants are the new poster children for the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously agreed that The Slants� First Amendment rights were violated when the government claimed the right to control their speech in exchange for offering a trademark. The opinion warns against government moves to �silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.� Fortunately, the risk of that kind of broad censorship is much lower after today�s decision.

Years ago, The Slants applied for a registered trademark, a massive financial benefit handed out by the federal Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). For any band with an aspirational following, a registered trademark means a lot: the right to brand yourself � and your products � with an expression of your choosing and a strong right to enforce your claim against fakers and counterfeiters. That makes the registration of trademarks a substantial government benefit. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can�t hand out benefits based on how much it agrees with the views you express.

There is absolutely no doubt that this particular trademark expresses a very clear message: The Slants chose their name to reclaim and redeem a racial slur often used against Asians and Asian-Americans. After they applied for the registration, the PTO examiner handling their application denied them a trademark � after Googling the band and discovering it was made up of Asian-American rockers. He thus determined that the band was using �slant� as a slur and denied their application under the Lanham Act.

That was censorship, pure and simple.

The Lanham Act is a federal law that � until today � permitted the government to deny registered trademarks determined to be �disparag[ing],� or otherwise �offensive� or �immoral� to a �substantial composite� of an affected group. And despite the fact that the members of the Slants are themselves part of the �affected group� in question, the PTO found the name too offensive for a registered trademark.

The Slants weren�t satisfied with that decision. And like the rock stars they are, they didn�t take it lying down. The band appealed the PTO�s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where we filed an amicus brief and provided oral argument to the court on the glaring First Amendment problems with the Lanham Act. The band � and the First Amendment � won. But the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court.

And thank goodness it did!

Today the Supreme Court affirmed a core value of free speech: The government cannot withhold a benefit in order to limit or punish what it perceives to be offensive speech. And hopefully today�s decision will put a stop to the absurd practice of PTO examiners acting as formal speech police, Googling people to find out if they�re the �right kind� to receive a government benefit.

As with many things under the First Amendment, this decision may lead to uncomfortable results: Products with truly racist or sexist names will (continue to) appear on shelves and a certain Washington football team now undoubtedly gets to retain its own offensive team name, which lost its trademark in 2014 in a decision upheld by lower courts.

Let�s be clear: Unlike in the Slants� case, there is no cultural reappropriation going on with the NFL team. But there�s no way to lawfully censor speech that offends us without allowing the government the power to censor speech that offends anyone � including The Slants� band name. When we object to ideas that appear in our marketplace, the default response shouldn�t be to sweep them under a rug and pretend that they aren�t there, but rather call them out, boycott companies that make products that offend us, and ensure our spending reflects our values.

Censorship doesn�t just violate the First Amendment � it often doesn�t produce its intended results. As many activists who lived through the civil rights era, or protested in the streets just this past year, could tell you: Restrictions on free speech are often applied most stringently against groups trying to challenge the status quo.

The Slants are no exception. Decades of history have taught the ACLU that freedom of speech and racial justice are inseparable. And The Slants are now officially rock stars of both.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 05:18

Sucrose: Dec 9, 2009

If you can be jailed for encouraging others to commit violence towards a person or group of people, I think it logically follows that you can also be jailed for coaching someone to kill themselves. It's a well-established principle that Free Speech doesn't cover encouraging or threatening harm to others.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 19:49

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Nckdictator posted:

Hey OP

Hey buddies, I didn't reference the first amendment in the thread title because I intended to tell people what they can and cannot say in the thread.

roomforthetuna posted:

I think you're black-and-whiting it too much here. That they were dating is material because it's evidence that she was in a position to be a strong influence on his decisions. This doesn't imply that there couldn't be different evidence for that if they weren't dating, and it's not very usefully material in this particular case because there's much more tangible evidence that overwhelms its relevance, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant at all.

I do wonder if the judge would reach the same conclusion if she had been a total stranger he accidentally dialed. I would be inclined to think he would, because his reasoning seems to suggest that she acquired some kind of limited affirmative duty under the circumstances, and I don't think the existence of that duty hinges on her being his girlfriend, it just makes her actions that much grosser.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 20:50

Salt Fish: Sep 11, 2003; Cybernetic Crumb

Nevvy Z posted:

Hey buddies, I didn't reference the first amendment in the thread title because I intended to tell people what they can and cannot say in the thread.

I do wonder if the judge would reach the same conclusion if she had been a total stranger he accidentally dialed. I would be inclined to think he would, because his reasoning seems to suggest that she acquired some kind of limited affirmative duty under the circumstances, and I don't think the existence of that duty hinges on her being his girlfriend, it just makes her actions that much grosser.

If someone called you and you had no idea who it was that would be different because in this case she KNEW he was in the act of committing suicide and that her words would determine the outcome. Reading those text messages makes it pretty apparent that she knew her actions would create a cause and effect situation where he ended up dead.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 22:07

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Salt Fish posted:

If someone called you and you had no idea who it was that would be different because in this case she KNEW he was in the act of committing suicide and that her words would determine the outcome. Reading those text messages makes it pretty apparent that she knew her actions would create a cause and effect situation where he ended up dead.

If you spent weeks convincing somebody that they should act on their suicidal feelings and that killing themselves is the right thing to do, even if that person is a complete stranger, you would still know your actions would be a casual factor in that person's suicide.

If this case were over the actions over a course of maybe a few hours or a single day the relationship to the victim might be meaningful, but not in this particular case IMO.

# ? Jun 21, 2017 22:33

3D Megadoodoo: Nov 25, 2010

She should be glad it was a judge who condemned her and not Hercule Poirot.

# ? Jul 26, 2017 13:39

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

chill urself op and relax you're famil

suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jul 26, 2017

# ? Jul 26, 2017 15:20

Pembroke Fuse: Dec 29, 2008

BirdOfPlay posted:

He wouldn't be dead at all.

Unless this is some sort of "everything happened BUT they weren't dating" question, which makes about as much sense as "Hitler BUT not crazy" scenarios. It's the relationship they had that allowed as much contact and trust that was needed for her to do this.

This is nonsense. People have been cyberbullied into suicide before by people they were not dating. It's possible to have an unhealthy relationship with anyone.

# ? Jul 26, 2017 15:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 05:31

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Jerry Cotton posted:

She should be glad it was a judge who condemned her and not Hercule Poirot.

Thank God you came into a thread that's been dead for a month to post this blazing hot take.

# ? Jul 26, 2017 16:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Free speech and its manslaughter attempts: a First Amendment thread.

«‹›2 »