Michelle Carter: guilty... protected speech?

[icehorse]

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like criminal negligence to me.

I'm also no lawyer - but it appears that the (not so), mythical congressmen *might* be guilty of some form of endangerment (reckless or public perhaps?_

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ok, what if she wasn't in a good state of mind?

That would be something to consider if she was, but it wasn't brought up in the case.

 

[icehorse]

All that's lacking is a motive, and I think I suggested two that would appeal to such people: destabilizing emerging countries and playing god on a planetary scale - and need for such an idea to explain something not easily explained by a more parsimonious view.

Sad to say, it wouldn't shock me too much if such people and motives were afoot. urgh.

 

[suncowiam]

That would be something to consider if she was, but it wasn't brought up in the case.

It was actually brought up. She was depressed and was taking prescribed psychiatric medicine. Even a doctor testified on her behalf that the medicine could cause her to have less emotions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was actually brought up. She was depressed and was taking prescribed psychiatric medicine. Even a doctor testified on her behalf that the medicine could cause her to have less emotions.

That wasn't in the OP link, and from what the story says, her encouraging him to kill himself did not just start suddenly happening.

 

[Nous]

So if a congressman says repeatedly not to worry about sea levels rising, should his words have consequences when people lose their homes to the seas?

How is that circumstance supposed to be analogous to Carter's acts? What law would be violated by a member of Congress "say[ing] repeatedly not to worry about sea levels rising"?

Obviously in the case against Carter, the judge found that she was guilty of violating the law against involuntary manslaughter, in which someone's wanton or reckless conduct creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will come to another person. I don't know of any analogous criminal statute concerning someone's house being flooded.

Argument from analogy is one of the most common methods of reasoning used in the law. But the case being used as an analogy to another has to be similar in all essential respects. Argument from analogy fails when the two cases are dissimilar in any important way.

 

[Nous]

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like criminal negligence to me.

"Criminal negligence" in what crime? Negligence is one of the degrees of culpability. One cannot be guilty of a crime by acting negligently unless one has committed an act proscribed by law.

 

[Nous]

No one is an island. All manner of acts that people do are in response to other people's words.

Only those who wish to be controlled.

The statement you made here was an act in response to another person's words.

 

[gnomon]

Am I the only one insulted that there is a moron degrading an individual who took his own life at the assertion of another and attempting to draw a comparison with climate change?

 

[Underhill]

Summary: Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Her long stream of pro-suicide texts to an acquaintance who ended up committing suicide, were deemed criminal.

While Ms. Carter's actions were - IMO - horrible, I wonder whether they were protected speech.

I'm tending to think that this decision erodes free speech. It's a horrible, tricky situation no doubt, but I still think this was a bad ruling.

Guilty Verdict for Young Woman Who Urged Friend to Kill Himself

Free speech does not mean your speech cannot have consequences.

 

[icehorse]

Free speech does not mean your speech cannot have consequences.

Agreed. But I'm curious about the legal boundaries and an equal application of the laws. In post #24 I linked to a video (start at around 3:00), in which several members of congress seemed to be willfully lying in ways that might end up killing thousands of citizens and displacing millions more. It strikes as odd that this type of speech doesn't have more serious consequences.

 

[icehorse]

Am I the only one insulted that there is a moron degrading an individual who took his own life at the assertion of another and attempting to draw a comparison with climate change?

The fair and consistent defense of free speech is complex and essential, and it spans many situations. Closer to home, this situation might have much more direct contact with what many of us would see as legitimate "right to die with dignity" situations.

I've seen no one on this thread have a positive thing to say about Michelle Harris, the situation is bigger than her and her reprehensible behavior.

 

[Underhill]

Agreed. But I'm curious about the legal boundaries and an equal application of the laws. In post #24 I linked to a video (start at around 3:00), in which several members of congress seemed to be willfully lying in ways that might end up killing thousands of citizens and displacing millions more. It strikes as odd that this type of speech doesn't have more serious consequences.

It can be hard to establish causation. But I understand your point.

 

[gnomon]

The fair and consistent defense of free speech is complex and essential, and it spans many situations. Closer to home, this situation might have much more direct contact with what many of us would see as legitimate "right to die with dignity" situations.

I've seen no one on this thread have a positive thing to say about Michelle Harris, the situation is bigger than her and her reprehensible behavior.

How is that?

Explain in full detail.

edit: How are you not taking advantage of a horrific situation to perpetuate a concept which you apparently do not understand yourself? Tread carefully.

 

[icehorse]

How are you not taking advantage of a horrific situation to perpetuate a concept which you apparently do not understand yourself? Tread carefully.

Stow the "tread carefully" nonsense, pul-ease.

How am I "taking advantage" of anything? I'm exploring and trying to understand why one form of speech that caused harm is actionable, and another form of speech, that causes, far, far, far more harm is not.

 

[gnomon]

QUOTE="icehorse, post: 5224768, member: 52014"]The fair and consistent defense of free speech is complex and essential, and it spans many situations. Closer to home, this situation might have much more direct contact with what many of us would see as legitimate "right to die with dignity" situations.

I've seen no one on this thread have a positive thing to say about Michelle Harris, the situation is bigger than her and her reprehensible behavior.[/QUOTE]


Irrelevant.

It's about approaching specific topics based upon their specific merits.

Grade school children learn this.

I don't give a damn about the Harris case at this point thanks to you.

You attempted to draw a false parallel. The former discussion was significant with the case of suicidal individuals and the complex relationship with others. You are attempting to parallel that discussion with a far more complex issue regarding climate change and that elected officials are attempting to speak about that issue never mind they lack the specific scientific education to speak about such issues.

To be frank, you hijacked a proper discussion involving individuals with depressive disorders and personal interaction with a vague parallel of politicians attempting to discuss complex scientific concepts.

edit: I love you anyway icehorse. I'm just a sorry piece of garbage on this forum anyway.