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.