The fire in the movie theater is the classic example of the limits on freedom of speech. I am familiar with it. But it is fundamentally different than the case we are talking about. To wit, a theater is a public place. The people inside of it have no choice whether or not they hear someone shouting "Fire!". The guy in the article had that choice. Nobody forced him to read anything this girl sent him.
Yes and if there is a law passed that says it's illegal to convince someone to kill themselves, that is a limit on free speech that I would support. I just don't think that law is already on the books.
IIRC, there was an incredible amount of discussion about this at the time and it lead to large sections in the UCMJ. The actions and subsequent trials of the nazis are why a subordinate has a legal duty to refuse an order that they know to be illegal. From a moral standpoint, of fucking course Hitler did something wrong. He did thousands upon thousands upon millions of morally reprehensible things. Legally, I don't know. He was never tried for his actions as the leader of the Third Reich. This i…
Again, I agree with you. The shit she did is horrific and from a moral standpoint she absolutely deserves to be punished. From a legal standpoint I have trouble with the precedent being set that any communication can lead to a manslaughter charge. I really, really think that you should actually have to do something in order to be charged with a felony of that magnitude. This is effectively setting the precedent that you can be held responsible for the actions of someone else.
Is this actually illegal though? I agree with you - it's disgusting - but I think there's a fairly strong freedom of speech argument to be made. IANAL but I don't think there's a manslaughter argument to be made. She didn't actually do anything.
