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

Legal Responsibility for Words

Arkady

President
What about being silent...Like when Bill Clinton rapes women and Hillary keeps silent about it even when the swear under oath that Bill Clinton raped them.
You contribute nothing of value to this forum -- and, I'd guess, to the world.
 
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?
Violent speech is not a crime unless you're immediately directing someone (or people) to commit violence and they act on that direction. How would that be different if you are directing a person to commit violence on oneself? You'd be giving Awlaki a pass in Yemen. Or higher up in crimes against humanity a pass. Of course degree of control is a differentiating factor in which collective judgment is brought to bear in each case.

There is theoretical speech on committing violence and directing speech on committing violence.
 

Arkady

President
Violent speech is not a crime unless you're immediately directing someone (or people) to commit violence and they act on that direction. How would that be different if you are directing a person to commit violence on oneself? You'd be giving Awlaki a pass in Yemen. Or higher up in crimes against humanity a pass. Of course degree of control is a differentiating factor in which collective judgment is brought to bear in each case.

There is theoretical speech on committing violence and directing speech on committing violence.
The degree of control is, indeed, a key factor. If a mafia boss says someone should kneecap the local DA, and one of his goons does it, that's different from if you were to say the same thing and then someone did it. The mafia boss is effectively in control of the actions of those subordinates and is responsible for what they do.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The degree of control is, indeed, a key factor. If a mafia boss says someone should kneecap the local DA, and one of his goons does it, that's different from if you were to say the same thing and then someone did it. The mafia boss is effectively in control of the actions of those subordinates and is responsible for what they do.
and to think just above you posted you contribute nothing of value to the forum to Drumcollie and then post of Mafia Boss.........LMAO
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
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 heard about this case. My standard is the "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater". This is right on the line. I can't say whether I would have voted guilty. I can say I wouldn't vote based on where it might lead in the future. As a juror, I would judge a case on its own merits.

I can also say that if a disturbed person were standing on a ledge threatening to jump and a crowd below encouraged it, I would vote not guilty if anyone were prosecuted. The case at hand, a friend encouraging a specific person they know to kill themselves right then and there- makes it a tough one for me.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
The degree of control is, indeed, a key factor. If a mafia boss says someone should kneecap the local DA, and one of his goons does it, that's different from if you were to say the same thing and then someone did it. The mafia boss is effectively in control of the actions of those subordinates and is responsible for what they do.
One could then argue that the person who did the encouraging was in control of the situation enough to be held accountable of the outcome.
 
The degree of control is, indeed, a key factor. If a mafia boss says someone should kneecap the local DA, and one of his goons does it, that's different from if you were to say the same thing and then someone did it. The mafia boss is effectively in control of the actions of those subordinates and is responsible for what they do.
Psychological control is also relevant. Think Jim Jones. Charles Manson.
 

Arkady

President
Psychological control is also relevant. Think Jim Jones. Charles Manson.
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.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
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.

What Arkady means is if Hillary Clinton says ...Kill the Republicans, you just have to let her say that and no one should holder her guilty...But someone say Bill Clinton is a rapist and Arkady will shut you down.
 
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.
People can be temporarily and permanently susceptible to interpersonal influence based on their natural psychological capacity at a given time. That also needs to be considered. That along with did the person who took advantage of that weakness know that weakness existed.

It does get complicated subjectively and for better or worse that is the function of a jury in the end. Leaving it to a judge is more often than not a mistake.
 

Spamature

President
I see a distinction there, in that you're causing an involuntary reaction. The grandma didn't choose to have her heart give out in that scenario -- it was just the result of her heart not being able to cope with the adrenaline that he body involuntarily dumped into her system. By comparison, this man chose to get back in that car.

In theory, I guess, we could argue that a sufficiently mentally ill person is no longer truly capable of choice, such that it was "involuntary" for him to get back in that car. But that strikes me as a slippery slope to go down, since if you're going to act like mentally ill people lack agency for such purposes, securing their freedom of choice in other matters will be made more difficult (e.g., if a depressed person isn't competent to make choices like that, should he even have the choice to be in a relationship, or should Big Brother step in and rule that out)?
Intoxication works that way in a sexual relationship and turns it into rape where one person is deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves. Manslaughter is not that far a stretch when you think about it.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Intoxication works that way in a sexual relationship and turns it into rape where one person is deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves. Manslaughter is not that far a stretch when you think about it.
Readers are sure you have expertise of what you posted.
 

Arkady

President
What Arkady means is if Hillary Clinton says ...Kill the Republicans, you just have to let her say that and no one should holder her guilty...But someone say Bill Clinton is a rapist and Arkady will shut you down.
No clue what you were trying to say there.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
The kid encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself. In essence, she yelled "fire" in a crowded theatre. She crossed a line.
I understand the authorities found out about her participation...because, as a kid, she also had a big, stupid mouth revealing her screwball motivation.
 

Arkady

President
Intoxication works that way in a sexual relationship and turns it into rape where one person is deemed to be incapable of deciding for themselves. Manslaughter is not that far a stretch when you think about it.
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.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The kid encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself. In essence, she yelled "fire" in a crowded theatre. She crossed a line.
I understand the authorities found out about her participation...because, as a kid, she also had a big, stupid mouth revealing her screwball motivation.
1000's of miles away on the Phone, if she's guilty why isn't Travons girlfriend of telling him to "get the cracker" and his death?

We know, that's different and she's black, you only hate whites.
 

Spamature

President
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.
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 ?
 
Top