New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Legal Responsibility for Words

Spamature

President
Tell us more of getting drunk and raping _______________________
I once heard a story about a drunk guy with a knife who gave a hobo 4000 stitches when the hobo resisted his sexual advances. Maybe you read about it in your court transcripts.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
I once heard a story about a drunk guy with a knife who gave a hobo 4000 stitches when the hobo resisted his sexual advances. Maybe you read about it in your court transcripts.
All you have are lies and always thinking about gay BS.................

Boy when you get your ass kicked in a debate you resort to libel lies.........

weak, very weak even for you.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
One is artificial and the other is natural when it comes to being chemically disabled. I think the real question is your knowledge before hand. You can clearly see that someone if someone intoxicated. You might not know that someone is suffering from Depression.

If you are both intoxicated that may be different. The real question is if you are both depressed. If you both entered into a suicide pact and then one of you backs out. Is the survivor liable for the death of the party that went through with it ? Or did they save their own life from a person who was trying to get them to commit suicide ?
Trying to read that diatribe of Ebonics would depress most or make them want to get high!
 

Jen

Senator
We've been discussing the question of people's responsibility for words. For example, when Trump waxes nostalgic for the days when people like the hecklers in his crowds would be taken out on stretchers, is he responsible (morally or legally) if that happens? Or, if Bernie Sanders criticizes Donald Trump's presidency, is he responsible if some guy half-way across the country shoots a Congress member (yeah, I know, that's absurdly more attenuated, but there are people trying to argue it, so I'll throw it out there.)?

Along those lines, I wanted to call attention to a new verdict that really changes the legal landscape with regard to the question.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-texting-case/index.html

In short, a kid named Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for urging her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself. The case turned on a phone call between the two, where he exited a carbon-monoxide-filled truck, where he was trying to kill himself, and she encouraged him to get back in. The defense pointed out she'd started by trying to encourage him not to kill himself, but over time came to believe he was in so much psychological pain it was his only way out. The prosecution argued she was cynically seeking the popularity boost that would come at high school from being the grieving girlfriend.

So, what do people here think? I'm pretty close to a free-speech absolutist, so I'm appalled by the verdict. I think that encouraging someone to commit violence, either against others or against himself, should be viewed as protected speech under the First Amendment. I believe there's a line that can be crossed, where the person is actually incentivizing the conduct (e.g., promising to pay a contract killer for a murder, or promising to pay the legal bills of a thug who assaults the speaker's political enemies), and then it's no longer free speech. But short of something like that, I think people should be free to make whatever arguments they want, even arguments in favor of violence.

It's not hard to picture how a precedent like the Michelle Carter case could lead down a dangerous legal path. For example, what about cases where doctors or loved ones suggest to a seriously ill patient that it's not worth putting himself through the hell of treatment for a few extra months of life? If the patient listens to that advice, his death could be said to be attributable to those words. Similarly, what if you were to text "you should kick his ass" to a friend who is complaining about bad treatment -- if that text is discovered after your friend actually does assault the person, should you share in legal liability for that?
Yes. I agree. Maybe we need to start looking at the consequences of peoples' words:

Loretta Lynch speaking to Democrats said they should rise up and yes, there will be blood and death on the streets.

Tim Kaine likewise told Democrats to fight in the streets.

And then there's #huntrepublicans.

If you believe that anyone on the Right has crossed a line..........you need to also look to those on the Left who have and are still doing that.

If Trump needs to tone down his response to these calls for violence ( when he says it it's always in response to something the Left has done)......... then maybe the Left has some toning down to do. After all, all.....ALL of the actual violence since the election has come from the Left. You can't ignore it. But I'm sure you will.
 
Last edited:

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
That would be an interesting case. But sometimes words are a crime (bribery or inciting a riot or a panic, for example).
If inciting riot were actually enforced, every Democrat politician would be in the slammer. Inciting violence is the crown jewel in their resumes.
 

EatTheRich

President
Yes, that's a fair point. However, I still think you can draw a distinction between someone who exercises control by way of a position of authority within an organization (a crime family, a cult, a terrorist cell), and someone who merely exerts interpersonal influence by way of a personal relationship.
Also maybe different if the person telling you to kill yourself is your shrink, or legal guardian, or otherwise in a personal relationship of authority.
 

Arkady

President
One is artificial and the other is natural when it comes to being chemically disabled. I think the real question is your knowledge before hand. You can clearly see that someone if someone intoxicated. You might not know that someone is suffering from Depression.

If you are both intoxicated that may be different. The real question is if you are both depressed. If you both entered into a suicide pact and then one of you backs out. Is the survivor liable for the death of the party that went through with it ? Or did they save their own life from a person who was trying to get them to commit suicide ?
Interesting line of thought (and, for the record, in the case at hand, she was depressed, too). But I decide, instead, based on my near-absolute defense of free speech. You should be free to argue that someone should kill himself -- even someone you know to be intoxicated or depressed. Unless you owe a duty of care to the person (e.g., it's a child, or you're the person's psychologist, etc.), they should be responsible for their own acts.
 

freyasman

Senator
Interesting line of thought (and, for the record, in the case at hand, she was depressed, too). But I decide, instead, based on my near-absolute defense of free speech. You should be free to argue that someone should kill himself -- even someone you know to be intoxicated or depressed. Unless you owe a duty of care to the person (e.g., it's a child, or you're the person's psychologist, etc.), they should be responsible for their own acts.
I've told a few people to go kill themselves, and while it might not be very nice of me, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if one of them ever actually did.
 

connieb

Senator
We've been discussing the question of people's responsibility for words. For example, when Trump waxes nostalgic for the days when people like the hecklers in his crowds would be taken out on stretchers, is he responsible (morally or legally) if that happens? Or, if Bernie Sanders criticizes Donald Trump's presidency, is he responsible if some guy half-way across the country shoots a Congress member (yeah, I know, that's absurdly more attenuated, but there are people trying to argue it, so I'll throw it out there.)?

Along those lines, I wanted to call attention to a new verdict that really changes the legal landscape with regard to the question.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-texting-case/index.html

In short, a kid named Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for urging her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself. The case turned on a phone call between the two, where he exited a carbon-monoxide-filled truck, where he was trying to kill himself, and she encouraged him to get back in. The defense pointed out she'd started by trying to encourage him not to kill himself, but over time came to believe he was in so much psychological pain it was his only way out. The prosecution argued she was cynically seeking the popularity boost that would come at high school from being the grieving girlfriend.

So, what do people here think? I'm pretty close to a free-speech absolutist, so I'm appalled by the verdict. I think that encouraging someone to commit violence, either against others or against himself, should be viewed as protected speech under the First Amendment. I believe there's a line that can be crossed, where the person is actually incentivizing the conduct (e.g., promising to pay a contract killer for a murder, or promising to pay the legal bills of a thug who assaults the speaker's political enemies), and then it's no longer free speech. But short of something like that, I think people should be free to make whatever arguments they want, even arguments in favor of violence.

It's not hard to picture how a precedent like the Michelle Carter case could lead down a dangerous legal path. For example, what about cases where doctors or loved ones suggest to a seriously ill patient that it's not worth putting himself through the hell of treatment for a few extra months of life? If the patient listens to that advice, his death could be said to be attributable to those words. Similarly, what if you were to text "you should kick his ass" to a friend who is complaining about bad treatment -- if that text is discovered after your friend actually does assault the person, should you share in legal liability for that?
I too am pretty close to a free speech absolutist as well, and I disagree with the verdict as well for the same reasons.

I actually hate the kind of grand standing of the prosecutor in this case, to go for that level of charges. I despise judicial activism and I am a strict constitutionalist - and believe in general the law on the books needs to be interpreted from the perspective of those who wrote it in the time that they wrote it. If they would not have conceived of texting a person to convince them to die when the statute of involuntary manslaughter was written - then what she did does not fall under that statute. We have to make our legislators do the hard work - of actually legislating these complex issues. Not let them off the hook by simply reinterpreting the law as we see fit. That to me, honestly violates the concept of notice. A person should know if their conduct is illegal. Not have a law reinterpreted to make something illegal because we now find ourselves morally incensed at their actions.

I do think that a case could be made for harassment. That is already a recognized exception to free speech. Maybe a separate count for each bad text - no concurrent sentencing and giving her the max - may have gotten them close to where she will get with involuntary manslaughter. I disagree with making "cyber-bullying" a crime for the same reason. We already have harassment. THAT is already the criminalization of using speech to harm another person mentally. That has a well established standard. If the speech does not rise to that - then I disagree with making some other law or some other charge

But, in addition to my free speech issue - I absolutely disagree with holding one person accountable for the actions of another. She is not a dr. She is not responsible for his mental health. She has no obligation to look out and care for him. It wasn't her responsibility to have to call 911 and report he was suicidal or try to stop him.

Morally, I think it was incredibly wrong for her to encourage him and to not stop him.But he chose his path. He chose to date her. He chose to text with her. People get in unhealthy relationships all the time.. and I don't think that means the other person is now responsible for the bad decisions of the other person in the relationship. I don't like that kind of precedent because to me it is creating some sort of standard of duty of care.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
I once heard a story about a drunk guy with a knife who gave a hobo 4000 stitches when the hobo resisted his sexual advances. Maybe you read about it in your court transcripts.
That's very strange. I always thought it was doctors who gave stitches, not people with knives.
 

connieb

Senator
I thought about the intoxication issue, but I think it's a slippery slope to treat people who are depressed as mentally incompetent, the way we treat people who are chemically disabled.
I agree. If a person is so incompetent that they are mentally suggestible like people who suffer from mental retardation are.. then they too should have a guardian who exercises control, etc. Then we are back to locking up the mentally ill in facilities. Its either/or in my opinion.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
We've been discussing the question of people's responsibility for words. For example, when Trump waxes nostalgic for the days when people like the hecklers in his crowds would be taken out on stretchers, is he responsible (morally or legally) if that happens? Or, if Bernie Sanders criticizes Donald Trump's presidency, is he responsible if some guy half-way across the country shoots a Congress member (yeah, I know, that's absurdly more attenuated, but there are people trying to argue it, so I'll throw it out there.)?

Along those lines, I wanted to call attention to a new verdict that really changes the legal landscape with regard to the question.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/michelle-carter-texting-case/index.html

In short, a kid named Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for urging her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself. The case turned on a phone call between the two, where he exited a carbon-monoxide-filled truck, where he was trying to kill himself, and she encouraged him to get back in. The defense pointed out she'd started by trying to encourage him not to kill himself, but over time came to believe he was in so much psychological pain it was his only way out. The prosecution argued she was cynically seeking the popularity boost that would come at high school from being the grieving girlfriend.

So, what do people here think? I'm pretty close to a free-speech absolutist, so I'm appalled by the verdict. I think that encouraging someone to commit violence, either against others or against himself, should be viewed as protected speech under the First Amendment. I believe there's a line that can be crossed, where the person is actually incentivizing the conduct (e.g., promising to pay a contract killer for a murder, or promising to pay the legal bills of a thug who assaults the speaker's political enemies), and then it's no longer free speech. But short of something like that, I think people should be free to make whatever arguments they want, even arguments in favor of violence.

It's not hard to picture how a precedent like the Michelle Carter case could lead down a dangerous legal path. For example, what about cases where doctors or loved ones suggest to a seriously ill patient that it's not worth putting himself through the hell of treatment for a few extra months of life? If the patient listens to that advice, his death could be said to be attributable to those words. Similarly, what if you were to text "you should kick his ass" to a friend who is complaining about bad treatment -- if that text is discovered after your friend actually does assault the person, should you share in legal liability for that?
Ms. Carter did have knowledge that a young man was in the act of committing suicide. Did she not have any legal obligation to inform authorities in a timely manner, at a bare minimum?
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Yes. I agree. Maybe we need to start looking at the consequences of peoples' words:

Loretta Lynch speaking to Democrats said they should rise up and yes, there will be blood and death on the streets.

Tim Kaine likewise told Democrats to fight in the streets.

And then there's #huntrepublicans.

If you believe that anyone on the Right has crossed a line..........you need to also look to those on the Left who have and are still doing that.

If Trump needs to tone down his response to these calls for violence ( when he says it it's always in response to something the Left has done)......... then maybe the Left has some toning down to do. After all, all.....ALL of the actual violence since the election has come from the Left. You can't ignore it. But I'm sure you will.
I believe Obama also told Democrats to "get in their faces", "if they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun", "whose ass to kick", "gearing up for a fight"and other rhetoric that promoted violence. And with the context being he was talking to leftists who are already known for being violent, one would have to be extremely dishonest to say it wasn't violent rhetoric.
 

connieb

Senator
Ms. Carter did have knowledge that a young man was in the act of committing suicide. Did she not have any legal obligation to inform authorities in a timely manner, at a bare minimum?
I would say, no, honestly. There is no legal obligation to witness a person drowning and call for help - unless you were in a position like parent/child where you had a duty of care.

Morally - she did of course have an obligation. She was as wrong as wrong could be.

But, this is one of those times in my opinion where the law does not have to live up to our moral codes. I do not want to create the legal standard where we have some sort of criminal legal obligation towards intervening in dangerous/bad situations for each other.
 
Top