...her boyfriend to suicide. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...elle-carter-case/ar-BBTeQUy?OCID=ansmsnnews11 "In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected legal arguments that Carter’s text messages and cellphone calls with Roy were forms of free speech protected by the First Amendment, and instead applied a 203-year-old ruling to her 21st Century communications. “We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter as a youthful offender, and that the other legal issues presented by the defendant, including her First Amendment claim, lack merit,’’ Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote for the court. “We therefore affirm.” " "Carter was 30 miles away from Roy and on the phone with him, listening as he inhaled carbon monoxide in his pickup truck in a Fairhaven parking lot, according to testimony. At one point, Roy, 18, told Carter he was getting out of the truck, but Carter ordered him back in, prosecutors said." OK. So aside from this girl being absolutely horrible... how is this different from the common 'troll' of 'go kill yourself'? That's not illegal, is it? To be clear, I really don't know what to think of this, and I really don't want to defend her. It really does seem like she's at least somewhat responsible for her boyfriends suicide... but was it really in a legally binding way? What power did she have to order him to kill himself? Did she cast a magical spell to overcome his free will? Was she holding someone hostage? Was this really anything more than just her being a total raging B, and how can that be illegal? What are your thoughts?
What she did was so evil, there has to be justice for it. The tipping point is when she ordered this mentally ill person back in to die. She got only 15 months. Sounds like she got off easy.
I dont disagree on any particular point. Is it provable that she knew he was mentally ill and/or otherwise particularly susceptible to her commands? If so... should her sentence be worse? Or do you think they took into account that she's mentally ill herself and possibly not in complete control of her own actions ordering him to action?
She probably never thought he would do it and if he did it would not be her fault. But her actions contributed to his death. A few years in prison and she will grow up fast
She was his GF, so she had emotional leverage that internet trolls don't have over complete strangers.
She deserves a bit of punishment, but I see a big slippery slope with free speech issues. It seems like they're chipping away at free speech. But like the above post stated, she was his girlfriend and had special sway over him, and the message was specifically directed to someone under the age of 18 (and mentally vulnerable). I feel those are factors here. Ultimately however he was the one responsible for his own life. He was the one who chose to act. (And it wasn't like she was goading him to kill someone else, which would have been a different story which we could have a debate about)
There are definitely mitigating factors here. I dont think an adult woman who did this to an adult Male with no history of mental illness would be held accountable for this
Yes, that is precisely what I find troubling about the outcome. I think a dangerous precedent has been set. Otoh, it seems she had almost a cult-like sway over him. Would the alternative result be less dangerous?
Question: If I try to persuade you that getting a sex change on your body is a good idea, can I be prosecuted for that? How about if you are mentally unstable? How about if you're still a teenager? At what point do we draw the line? It's okay for someone to get a sex change but not to kill themselves? How about I convince you to take on a job as a racecar driver at a figure 8 track, or go on a highly risky mission as a mercenary in another country? It's legal to convince a teenage girl to get an abortion, isn't it?
Plus, it's very illegal to intentionally try to drive someone to suicide. People who troll people online, telling them to committ suicide, CAN be charged if someone does it. And "I was just kidding" isn't a valid defense". It's no different than telling a suicidal person to jump off a building. It's illegal.
No free speech or slippery slope issue here. None at all. To not actively participate in and as someone one is killing oneself. The appellate court is 100% correct.
If someone has had mental health help in past, that does not make them immune to bad choices. People make choices and she chose to tell him to go back in and kill himself. As a matter a fact they found that she decided to help him get it done prior to this incident. This reminds me of a case on the First 48 where a women was texting her boyfriend who was robbing a place and she alluded that he should kill the homeowner and bring her the jewelry. She said she was on drugs and not responsible for those words. But she got time for it.
You don't get to incite murder, no. You don't get to incite your friend to beat your wife up or whomever. Free speech is not unlimited.
The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible. The woman is despicable for what she said but we do not need laws based on emotion.
This is a clear example of "call to action" to me. The ruling doesn't bother me. An internet troll doesn't actually want people to kill themselves. But when someone is actually committing suicide before you and you tell them to go through with it, you have a clear responsibility in the death. When speech constitutes action (and here it clearly does), it's no longer protected by free speech. There is the notion of direct and credible calls to violence, and here it's both direct and credible.
I don't think there is a slippery slope at all. Her actions had proven intent and motive to cause harm and death. If she didn't have such intent and she were writing an essay or a story, that would be different. That is where freedom on speech comes. But this is no different than someone inciting a riot or ordering a one person to kill another. That is not free speech.
He was still the one who had choice over his own life. The girl was not attempting to take that choice away from anyone.
Again, intent. If she told someone to kill someone else, would that not be their choice to do it as well?
Anyway, on the other hand, I wouldn't underestimate a woman's badgering and nagging. It can wear men down and get them to do almost anything. (Not just ordinary speech, if you ask me)
There's a huge difference between telling someone to kill themselves and telling someone to kill someone else.
Not really in the sense the just because she isn't the person performing the action means she holds no responsibility. She told someone to kill ones self.
The logic of my post was lost on you. She's ultimately not seeking to take the choice away from the individual who she is trying to make die.