Does nobody here care about free speech? I guess this is how freedom dies.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't commit a crime by using speech. Plenty of crimes involve speech, like fraud. Most relevantly, encouragement of a crime has long made someone an accomplice in a crime.
If you talk someone into murdering someone else, you will rightfully get convicted. Here, just change someone else to themselves.
The crime isn't the speech. The crime is him killing himself. How she brought it about doesn't really matter. That's why the first amendment isn't strongly implicated here.
Though the first amendment would likely protect someone who said "killself nerd" if the person actually did it. In that situation there is no intent for the person to actually kill them self.
Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!".
> We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease.
> these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.
My overall point is I think it is absurd to punish somebody for giving advice that you think is bad. The girl was in no position of power over the boy (as a doctor or lawyer might be). She gave her unbiased opinion the matter. And this is a crime somehow. Makes one very weary of what can be said.
This girl wasn't just giving advice. When he was committing suicide, he got cold feet and got out of the truck. She texted him "get back in the truck." That's not giving advice or her opinion by any stretch of the imagination; that's giving a command to someone in a very fragile mental state, and it's obvious based on the context what that command would lead to.
> Makes one very weary of what can be said.
Unless your words will directly and obviously lead to harm, you don't have to. And if you think your words might do that, well then you probably should choose your words carefully.
Legal experts say the decision could have national implications as courts grapple with how to apply long-standing laws as technological changes have taken interactions online.
I think this is a thing that very much needs to be grappled with. People often say that online communications don't really count, it isn't the same as meatspace. And yet people can get jobs, create companies with long distance cofounders, meet future spouses etc etc online. People seem to say "It doesn't really count" when they are doing something shitty they wouldn't do in person. These same people often laud kindness that occurs in cyberspace or that happens because of connections made that way.
This case is saying it still counts. I am fine with that having a potential chilling effect on shitty behavior generally that occurs online, on the phone, etc.