Michelle Carter: guilty... protected speech?

[icehorse]

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html?_r=0

 

[Quetzal]

but I still think this was a bad ruling.

Ever since this story broke, I have to say that you are the first person I have seen say this outcome was a bad one.

 

[columbus]

Ever since this story broke, I have to say that you are the first person I have seen say this outcome was a bad one.

Then I will be the second.
Like @icehorse , I think what she did was horrible. She deserves some punishment. But it wasn't homicide.
And I do see a need to balance free speech against the obvious emotional reactions to her abominable behavior. Unless someone can draw me a clear line in that huge gray area between expressing opinions and causing behavior I am more inclined to avoid criminalizing speech.
Again, this is a horrible tragedy. I'm not defending her and I don't have much sympathy for her problems after what she did. But I take free speech very seriously, social media drama not so much.
Tom

 

[Quetzal]

Then I will be the second.
Like @icehorse , I think what she did was horrible. She deserves some punishment. But it wasn't homicide.
And I do see a need to balance free speech against the obvious emotional reactions to her abominable behavior. Unless someone can draw me a clear line in that huge gray area between expressing opinions and causing behavior I am more inclined to avoid criminalizing speech.
Again, this is a horrible tragedy. I'm not defending her and I don't have much sympathy for her problems after what she did. But I take free speech very seriously, social media drama not so much.
Tom

I disagree. If I were the parents of the deceased, knowing she played an active role in my son's death, to see her get off due to protection of speech... I would riot. I am taking an empathetic position to the victim, so my posts will probably reflect that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is an interesting case because we've returned to an era where free speech and what extent it should be protected is such a hot button issue that some (not saying everyone or even anyone here is) will pretend that psychological damage from speech can't happen, or if it does, blame the constitution of the person receiving the verbal abuse to maintain this illusion that speech can't ever put fault at the feet of the speaker.
Though I notice that sentiment quickly dissolves when talking about verbal abuse to people with mental difficulties (such as this case) or as domestic abuse or child abuse. And, obviously, threats on lives or yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then I will be the second.
Like @icehorse , I think what she did was horrible. She deserves some punishment. But it wasn't homicide.
And I do see a need to balance free speech against the obvious emotional reactions to her abominable behavior. Unless someone can draw me a clear line in that huge gray area between expressing opinions and causing behavior I am more inclined to avoid criminalizing speech.
Again, this is a horrible tragedy. I'm not defending her and I don't have much sympathy for her problems after what she did. But I take free speech very seriously, social media drama not so much.
Tom

What she did should not be protected. Her actions had negative consequences for the lives of others, one that came to end when she told him to kill himself. It's no different than if she filled the gas tank up and started the car for him. Different actions, yes, but the result is the same. To say she wanted to listen to it, how is she not at least an accessory, if not an accomplice?
Whether people take things or say things, those actions have consequences. Anymore, this "free speech this" and "free speech that" has been degraded to a plea to absolve yourself of the consequences of your speech.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think I need more detail. In my opinion it depends upon if she had control of him. If he was in control of himself, then his death was on himself; but if evidenced that she had verbal control of him somehow then her words could constitute murder.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html?_r=0

It seems like it falls under the "incitement to violence" exception of free-speech, imho. I don't think it was a bad ruling. You can't directly tell someone to be violent towards themselves or others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think I need more detail. In my opinion it depends upon if she had control of him. If he was in control of himself, then his death was on himself; but if evidenced that she had verbal control of him somehow then her words could constitute murder.

Can't say for sure, but I'm not sure if the courts would hold someone in the process of killing themselves to be of sound mind. She told him to kill himself, and he finished doing it. Seems to me she had a good deal of power over him, especially given he was in such a vulnerable position.

 

[BSM1]

I, for one, will be very careful who I tell to "drop dead" from now on.

 

[columbus]

If I were the parents of the deceased, knowing she played an active role in my son's death, to see her get off due to protection of speech... I would riot.

If I were the parents, I would be looking for someone else to blame as well.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I, for one, will be very careful who I tell to "drop dead" from now on.

There is a mega-huge difference between that and telling someone trying to kill themselves to finish the job and that you want to listen.

If I were the parents, I would be looking for someone else to blame as well.
Tom

Their son was told by her to finish killing himself. He got out, called her, and she told him to get back in. Why should they not blame him.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

One of the more weird cases I've read about in recent years, but I agree the woman behaved appallingly, just another (more subtle perhaps) form of "cyber bullying". No sympathy for her at all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can't say for sure, but I'm not sure if the courts would hold someone in the process of killing themselves to be of sound mind. She told him to kill himself, and he finished doing it. Seems to me she had a good deal of power over him, especially given he was in such a vulnerable position.

True, but the burden of proof is on the side of the prosecution. Its possible that the prosecution proved she had verbal control of him, but if they did not then I agree it shouldn't be called murder, legally speaking. She can still be sued civilly and charged with other things that aren't murder. I don't agree with convicting people of murder just because of a spiteful comment like "Drop dead, sucker."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't agree with convicting people of murder just because of a spiteful comment like "Drop dead, sucker."

I already explained that:

There is a mega-huge difference between that and telling someone trying to kill themselves to finish the job and that you want to listen.

Like or not, words have power, words are actions, and actions have consequences.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's rather obvious that this shouldn't be protected speech for the same reasons that threats, harassment, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one, etc. aren't protected speech.

 

[Father Heathen]

I, for one, will be very careful who I tell to "drop dead" from now on.

I don't agree with convicting people of murder just because of a spiteful comment like "Drop dead, sucker."

You might've had a point if this actually reflected the case, which it doesn't. In fact it's not even comparable. Don't be disingenuous. She was continuously pressuring him to take his own life.

 

[Nous]

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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html?_r=0

Her texts are definitely not protected speech in most states, which criminalize the encouragement of someone to commit suicide. Massachusetts law does not, but involuntary manslaughter can be proved on tha basis of wanton or reckless conduct or the wanton or reckless failure to act. In previous cases in Massachusetts, people have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter on nothing more than their verbal encouragement or taunting someone to commit suicide. Carter's texts also show that she understood that what she had done was illegal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Perhaps it's time to revisit the issue of why we have a constitutionally protected right to self-expression. It's to prevent the government from silencing opinions offered sincerely and constructively to the marketplace of ideas, especially those critical of the government. That's an important element in a democracy.

This case has nothing to do with that. Here we have a malicious, sociopathic young lady whose only purpose was to test her powers without regard for the consequences. I think that we can all agree that she needs to be behind bars.

There may be cases that straddle the line between these two conflicting positions, and that are therefore examples of legitimate conundra, but in my opinion, this is not one of them. I want this girl off the streets, and I doubt that too many of us disagree. I don't want her making my espresso at Starbucks. She doesn't respect life.

 

[icehorse]

Perhaps it's time to revisit the issue of why we have a constitutionally protected right to self-expression. It's to prevent the government from silencing opinions offered sincerely and constructively to the marketplace of ideas, especially those critical of the government. That's an important element in a democracy.

This case has nothing to do with that. Here we have a malicious, sociopathic young lady whose only purpose was to test her powers without regard for the consequences. I think that we can all agree that she needs to be behind bars.

There may be cases that straddle the line between these two conflicting positions, and that are therefore examples of legitimate conundra, but in my opinion, this is not one of them. I want this girl off the streets, and I doubt that too many of us disagree. I don't want her making my espresso at Starbucks. She doesn't respect life.

You make some distinctions that I'm finding thought provoking, thanks. Let me try it on a different situation:

The Pentagon has done studies and has reported that climate change is a strategic threat to our country. Given that, is it possible that congressman who knowingly obfuscate or deny climate change could be held treasonous?

Many on this thread have held that Michelle Carter should be punished for her deeds, so shouldn't congressmen that are risking displacing and putting at risk millions of people also be punished?