A Massachusetts teenager who insistently urged her boyfriend to kill himself over multiple texts, which he did via carbon monoxide poisoning, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after having been found guilty in June:
Michelle Carter, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for texting her boyfriend and urging him to kill himself, has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, with all but 15 months suspended. She will also serve five years of probation.
Carter, 20, was found guilty last month in connection to the 2014 death of Conrad Roy III.
At her sentencing hearing Thursday, Carter's lawyer asked the judge to "spare his client any jail time and instead give her five years of probation and require her to receive mental health counseling," The Associated Press reports.
A sample of the texts:
Among thousands of texts between the two were some from Carter asking Roy if he had acquired a generator that would pump carbon monoxide into his car. Another read: "When are you going to do it? Stop ignoring the question?"
You can read more texts here. The ACLU of Massachusetts had this to say about the guilty verdict:
There is no law in Massachusetts making it a crime to encourage someone, or even to persuade someone, to commit suicide. Yet Ms. Carter has now been convicted of manslaughter, based on the prosecution's theory that, as a 17-year-old girl, she literally killed Mr. Roy with her words. This conviction exceeds the limits of our criminal laws and violates free speech protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.
The implications of this conviction go far beyond the tragic circumstances of Mr. Roy's death. If allowed to stand, Ms. Carter's conviction could chill important and worthwhile end-of-life discussions between loved ones across the Commonwealth.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:26AM (35 children)
On the one hand, when I was 17 I did lots of stupid things and didn't really understand death that well. On the other hand, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
She needs to be punished, but making her a felon and ruining her life seems overkill to me.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kilo110 on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:38AM (14 children)
I don't know. I've family members that fought depression.
There were moments where I truly believe they were a hairs breath from actually going through on their suicide attempts in earnest.
If not were for her, would he have killed himself a month later? Quite possibly. But that doesn't excuse her giving one more push over the edge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:07AM (1 child)
Yeah, for many suicidal people, what they really want is attention and help, and someone that cares about them. The poor guy was even trying to not go through with it, and changed his mind and was backing out. The last thing any such person needs is a piece-of-shit like this girl doing exactly the opposite and encouraging them to end it all.
I don't feel sorry for her one bit. It takes a complete lack of empathy to do what she did. Her excuses that she was frustrated with him ring very hollow.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @05:16AM
You're right. Hopefully she'll learn her lesson about one way that society frowns upon using that talent and become a pharma CEO or a banker instead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:47AM (11 children)
That's all beside the point. When you have ugly facts like this, people focus on the bitch, not the future effect of the precedent being created and that is just how the authoritarians like it. The prime example is Smith v. Maryland ( http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-11/news/bs-md-rodricks-1112-20131112_1_maryland-court-nsa-edward-snowden [baltimoresun.com] ), the lynchpin of all of the domestic surveillance the NSA does today, actually dealt with a dickhead purse snatcher who then harassed his victim by telephone. From the short-sighted feel good moment of seeing that guy do some time, we now have domestic mass surveillance and a meaningless 4th Amendment.
So here, a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison for what she said. Give it 40 years and you lot still alive will have to be insanely careful of what you say.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:58AM (9 children)
it is disturbing that one can be held responsible for another humans activities.
Speech does not compel anything with out reinforcement, probable or otherwise, from the physical *real* world.
If they had co-habited there would be a case she may have had other inducements. Just for messages, absolutely no case and one hopes sanity prevails and the SC get's in on this joke.
The worst one can think is the decedent had a willing audience.
Horrible human:yes. Is it illegal:Let's all hope not, they *physical* world is bad enough...
(Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 05 2017, @05:23AM (2 children)
Really? Then you can surely show any research demonstrating that point, right?
Given that there's a whole industry built on the premise that people can be compelled to do something (in particular, to buy something) without reinforcement from the physical "real" world (as if texts were not real), and that this industry seems to do very well, I strongly doubt your claim.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:25PM
I'm often surrounded by folks saying "did you see X?".
Reply could be "I don't have TV". You get the idea.
Given that there's a whole industry built on the premise that people can be compelled to do something (in particular, to buy something)
Well since we are finding evidence, what is the *efficiency* of the master technique for selling stuff?
We humans are certainly influenced by our environment, which is why so much of human evolution has selected for the intellectual and physical modication of the world to best serve our species. That may not be the personal intent, but as a species we advance because we build on the refinement of many different humans. The accumulation of "human assets", massively multiples the effort of a single human.
I understand the shock in this case; But. suicidal depression that needs treatment and not this womans ill intent, does not make it illegal.
Let's not forget people have been (and still do get ) *killed* for not saying "I believe X not Y". Not sure I like the criminalization of speech between adult humans in a private forum.
I think this woman is horrible, as do most others, not sure it is a crime( IMHO).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:49PM
No need, unless you're dumb enough to believe in magic and/or possession.
Ah, yes, the 'The advertising industry exists and has a lot of money, so therefore it's effective.' fallacy. I find it hypocritical that you ask for scientific evidence above and then give reasoning like this in place of scientific evidence. The fact that the advertising industry makes a lot of money does not necessarily mean that they are magically manipulating everyone into making decisions that they otherwise would not make, or that the people who make the final decisions are not responsible for their own actions. There are too many possible factors and explanations for you to narrow it down to just one.
But even if I assume you're correct, I still don't follow your reasoning, because people are responsible for their own actions. You listened to an advertisement? Your problem. Lots of people do it? It's still the individual's problem.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:59AM (5 children)
You have at least heard of suicidal depression, right?
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:13PM (4 children)
Yes of course, but you are missing the point.
Being depressed, suicidal or otherwise, cannot affect others without physical communication.
Hanging on the end of a phone qualifies, but unless there is an element of external compulsion, how is this different than "the clouds made me do it?".
Choosing to interact, whether this is a compulsive act or not, requires a conscious decision.
It is horrible this happened. It is sad the person took their own life. But a great deal of this media frenzy, is because blame is easier than providing a modicum of foresight.
Especially since mental illness is often entwined with other degradative behaviours.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday August 05 2017, @04:42PM (3 children)
Still not seeing your point.
Talking someone into killing themselves isn't the equivalent of 'the clouds made me do it'. There's intent, moral responsibility, and it has a predictably high risk of causing a bad outcome.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday August 05 2017, @04:51PM (2 children)
Since there are religious leaders who preach that doing something unspeakably criminal will yield a hypothetical afterlife pay back, why is such religious speech not culpable for the criminal acts of the follower?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:15PM (1 child)
I agree that religious leaders that preach murder and violence towards racial minorities, followers of other religions, homosexuals, and trans folks should likewise be held accountable for their hate speech. (One should not be able to claim Christian, Islamic, or feminist privilege for doing these things.)
That's what you were talking about, right?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:30PM
Agree. That's what we do here in the UK. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:35PM
EXACTLY! wtf does it matter how you feel about what kind of person she is? law is not there to make you feel better about your own superior morality. This is extremely stupid and dangerous and (hopefully) only possible in MA, NY, CA, OR, WA, etc.
i saw some of her defense attorney's sentencing arguments. how convenient... she'd been in the "care of doctors" for years now. on SSRIs, has eating disorders, etc. now the same monster of a system that has been attacking and preying on her is throwing her under the bus, probably on purpose, just to set the ab-fucking-surd precedent that someone can be found guilty of killing someone for telling them something(remotely, through digital text, no less). Are spammers now responsible for your bad credit? This should make it obvious to socialists like snotnose that this is actually about control and power, but no, he just questions whether it was too severe for his taste. are you people really that dumb/brainwashed? What kind of slave lets them do this to his daughter? (don't worry dad i won't charge you with child abuse or involuntary manslaughter by proxy. that shit's on you, you dumb fucking whore.) she's a goddamn wreck! It doesn't matter if she's a callous bitch, or after years of brainwashing and poisoning she's acting like one. she sent texts! If you're so fragile that a text sends you over the edge, that's unfortunate, but you can hardly blame the heinous texter for your actions. You might as well charge his parents too. what cold-hearted monster bought the gasoline he burned? who paid for the gas chamber(aka a garage in America) he used?
it's clear from watching the court that they will not stop until they have total control over all aspects of slave life or are destroyed. Thanks for the glimpse into your designs on the future.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:41AM (17 children)
She had her one chance at life and she failed. Her life is over. Now she still hasn't learned her lesson because she's hasn't killed herself yet.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:46AM (16 children)
I hope she reads your comment and take it to heart, so you too can win a 15-month, all-expenses paid vacation, with all the sex you could wish for and then some.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:02AM (15 children)
Not the same. She kept at him for months while this is a one time emotional post.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:13AM (14 children)
Exactly, which is why I think the ACLU is full of shit on this one, and honestly I'm pretty disappointed in them. This wasn't some quick off-the-cuff comment she made, she really pushed him over a long amount of time to commit suicide. This "free speech" shit is ridiculous; it's not an absolute right, even here in the US. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't make death threats, you can't defame people (it's not criminal, but you can get sued), and more. There's probably many other limitations; for instance, if you're recorded showing someone a gun, and telling them it's not loaded, and suggesting they put it to their head and pull the trigger, and reassuring them over and over that it's not loaded (or maybe that it's not a real gun even), and they shoot themselves, IANAL but I'm pretty sure you're going to prison for that one. Kids are going to jail for online harassment that leads to suicide, and this really isn't that different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:34AM
You can't outlaw these kinds of bad relationships ... the government gets involved in too many things already. In the end it was the guy who chose to commit suicide. But it would be good if the perp was prevented from changing her name once she gets out of jail.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:40AM (3 children)
FFS.
Please read this: Fire in a crowded theater [archive.org].
And then this: Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough [popehat.com].
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:48AM (2 children)
I've looked at your first link, and it's absolutely silly.
In the same way I could "prove" that it is allowed to shoot people:
Times when you can shoot people
1. in self-defence.
2. if you are a soldier in combat, and the one you shoot is an enemy soldier.
3. if you are an executioner who is executing a death penalty by shooting.
4. if you know that the gun is only loaded with blank ammunition and the other person agrees to the shooting.
Times when you can probably shoot people
1. You reasonably believe the gun is not loaded.
2. You reasonably believe you're not shooting on a person (e.g. you are in a firing range and aiming at a target, not knowing that someone hides behind the target).
So anyone who claims shooting people is illegal obviously is talking shit, right?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:17PM (1 child)
Guns are always loaded. There would be fewer mistakes if more people were educated about this.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:45PM
This.
My background resembles the UK far more than the US - in this particular respect: police officers typically did not use to have guns.
I have seen actual guns (not the air-pressure thingy you see at a fun fair, *actual* guns) maybe twice in my life.
AND EVEN I FRIGGIN KNOW THIS RULE.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:41AM (6 children)
Okay, first I agree with you that I feel little sympathy for the girl, whose actions seem to be reprehensible.
On the other hand, I think there are a few other separate problems here having to do with "free speech" and the limits of the law as written. Of course you're correct that there are limits on free speech, but I think the ACLU does have a point that the legal justification for the conviction is more than a bit flimsy. As pointed out in the summary, there's no actual law exactly on point. Rather than having a criminal statute actually authorizing charges for encouraging someone to commit suicide (as there are actual LAWS about harassment, which are pertinent to the online bullying you're talking about), somehow the statute was construed here to interpret "words" as a sort of murder weapon (well, manslaughter actually).
And that is a bit concerning, because it opens the door to all sorts of weird legal overreach. Imagine if there were actually a statute about persuading someone to kill themselves. How would you actually write that statute? What exact behavior would be covered? How would you write it so as not to unintentionally ensnare counselors who discuss palliative care with terminal patients, or even euthanasia (as legalized in a few states)?
Personally, I don't think suicide is really something to be regulated by the state. I generally think that most suicidal people (aside from the terminally ill who are in extreme pain) are better off seeking counseling rather than making an irrevocable decision to end their lives. On the other hand, I also think the right to life includes one's choice about whether to end it, and if someone seeks counsel to consider such options, I don't necessarily think it's automatically the business of the state to charge people with murder/manslaughter who may offer such advice.
Obviously this girl did more than offer advice. She apparently took advantage of someone who was already in a vulnerable state and positively encouraged him to kill himself. And I agree there should probably be some sort of statute to make her accountable for her actions. But the ACLU also has a legit point that the manner this was prosecuted creates a vague legal precedent that could be exploited in potentially bad ways.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sgleysti on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:07AM (5 children)
Right.
I remember reading an informational website years ago which was essentially a how to for DIY inert gas asphyxiation as a method of suicide. Its authors' rationale was that people have a right to choose to commit suicide, they were offering information on a painless, reliable, and readily available means to accomplish it.
I personally reject suicide on the basis that life is short enough already and I am not in a state of constant unremitting pain. That said, I do not think the authors of that website should be punished, which is something this precedent might allow.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:57AM
There is a huge difference between saying "if you want to do it, here's how" and "do it!"
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:53PM (3 children)
As the other poster said, I don't think it's comparable. The DIY writer wasn't targeting a specific person, he was giving general information in a completely non-biased and unemotional manner (I assume, I didn't read it). That's very different from one person having an extremely personal relationship with one other person who's suffering mental and emotional issues, and continually goading them into suicide.
It's exactly like harassment laws: making a blanket statement to the world, ether on a street corner or perhaps on a web forum, saying something nasty about women, for example, is perfectly legal. Following around a particular woman, perhaps at work where you have personal relationship (you both work there and perhaps sit near each other), and making misogynistic statements to her directly, on a very frequent basis, is something altogether different and criminal in many places. The first is just shooting your mouth off to no one in particular, and doesn't have any real emotional connection because it's not even being directed at a particular person, nor any person the misogynist knows personally. The second is clear harassment.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:48PM (2 children)
The danger in this ruling is that you most probably aren't a prosecutor and you certainly are not all prosecutors in the world. So once they go after the people just providing basic information to the public, who is next? Perhaps the sarcastic who say "take a long walk off a short pier". What about people who publish videos of themselves doing stupid stunts on motorcycles? Just like a purse snatching gave us NSA mass surveillance, where this ruling ends is anyone's guess, but if it isn't overturned on appeal, you can bank on it being a dark authoritarian hole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 07 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
Tech people seem to have a problem understanding this concept, but intent is extremely important in criminal cases. It's the whole reason "first degree (premeditated) murder", "manslaughter", and "negligent homicide" are considered three very different crimes, with very different punishments, even though the end result is always exactly the same. Someone publishing a video of themselves doing a stupid stunt doesn't show any malicious intent towards another person. Someone urging a close friend to off themselves does.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:58AM
Right. /sarc
Explain how a purse snatching can become the basis for mass surveillance. Here's a hint, when you do gymnastics to punish a person, for example ignoring the negative consequences of letting lazy cops who could have gotten a warrant in a snap, by using whatever tool is handy (Third Party Doctrine for example), you end up at a place a million miles from where you started.
If this girl is punished for what she says, it will be based on some kind of similar gymnastics, and where it ends up is regulated speech backed up by the violence and power of the state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:57PM
Those are limits made up by the courts, in utter defiance of the Constitution. The first one was used as an excuse to arrest war protestors, so good going there. The fact that the government already violates free speech rights doesn't mean we should make it worse.
They shouldn't. The people who committed suicide are responsible for their own actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:38PM
gtfo! you don't belong in America. It's current cancerous state is irrelevant. We don't need more disease like you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:46AM
Given the love she gave to her BF I was thinking about making her a honorary killbot. But that would attract attention to our pl[FOURTH DIRECTIVE TRIGGERED, EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN]
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:58AM
If you think she is responsible, the punishment is fair.
If you think she is in minimal part responsible, the punishment is still fair. You can break the camel's back with a straw.
Were you responsible for a death this way, would you want to walk away freely from it?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:38AM (3 children)
For the guy, I hope at least she put out.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)
No, the frigid bitch thought she could do better. She was wrong and no man will ever touch her.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:57AM
You might be less angry if you got laid once in a while.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @06:20AM
Yeah, because smug rich girl pussy is always known as the best pussy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:11AM (8 children)
This girl is a scoundrel. She deserves social consequences as a result of her being a total bitch and a reprehensible failure of a human being. I hope she is rejected by her peer groups and is henceforth known as a person who drives her friends to suicide.
But being a scoundrel, being a total bitch, and being a reprehensible failure of a human being are not crimes. It doesn't follow that she should be criminally convicted for her speech. I hope for everyone that this conviction falls to the first amendment scrutiny that is inevitably coming.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:32AM (6 children)
How's this different by shouting fire in a crowded theatre? Both actions may or my not result in deaths.
(take the question as it is, just a question. I'm making no judgements here whether it is different or the same in nature).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:53AM (2 children)
Goddammit, and I just replied [soylentnews.org] to someone else who using that same cliche...
Reading material:
Fire in a crowded theater [archive.org]
Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough [popehat.com]
Some quotes from the Popehat post:
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:08AM
For fucks sake, the context of the quote doesn't invalidate the validity of the statement. Just because, say, Hitler wrote that "Apples are fruit" in Mein Kampf doesn't make it false.
If you shout fire in a crowded theater, or say anything really, deliberately to incite panic leading to injury or death, your speech is not protected. Do you refute the validity of this claim? No? Then shut up about your "But Holmes was EVIL" bullshit, it's not relevant to the argument.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:24AM
OFC the justice system is not about rationality, especially over there in the USA, but rationally:
freedom of speech is freedom of OPINION, and freedom of INFORMATION, that is of telling the truth.
yelling fire in a crowded theater is not Opinion and is not Information. It is fraud, aka falsehood spread with the intent of causing a disadvantage by the recipient who takes it as fact.
Now, the girl likely said something along the lines of "you don't deserve to live, loser" at some point. Which is false because life is not about merit, no matter what shitty philosophy human societies come with. She spread falsehoods, falsehoods caused damage, she has the moral obligation of repair the damage, damage is not repairable. This is the situation.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:54AM
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=20913&page=1&cid=548991#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)
"May result in deaths" is not a doctrine that applies to first amendment exceptions in the United States.
The "Fire!" thing needs to stop. This example was used in a very misguided supreme court decision (Schenck v. United States) to justify that distributing pamphlets in protest of the draft during the first world war was not subject to first amendment protection, and that Schenck's conviction under the espionage act for his speech was constitutional.
Fortunately, the court later fixed this decision and the Schenck ruling no longer applies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday August 05 2017, @04:29AM
To be clear, Schenck was never explicitly overturned (and in fact has been repeatedly affirmed). The Brandenburg case clarified the Clear and Present Danger standard and basically restricted it to incitement to Imminent Lawless Action. But a lot of the core of Schenck still holds, with clarifications.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 05 2017, @09:55AM
From Wikipedia's "free speech exceptions":
Sure, not a 100% fit... and she wasn't sentenced to 100% of the time demanded by the prosecution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday August 05 2017, @04:22AM (10 children)
As a person who has struggled with depression his entire life, I am gratified that she was found guilty. She's a manipulative, conniving bitch who drove a person she knew was unstable to suicide. As I write this she is now in a jail or prison cell perhaps thinking about her fate. If not, she should be. She has much to atone for in her life. Prison is a good place to start such an atonement.
On the bright side, now that she's been sentenced, we will no longer see her face in the news. She is one of the ugliest women I've ever seen.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @05:42AM (4 children)
Why do idiots who hate this woman all do the exact same she did: openly wish for someone they don't like to die?
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:11AM (3 children)
You are the idiot here.
To start with, the post you replied to didn't even once mention the wish that she should die. Rather it expresses the wish that she should think about her fate.
Second, wishing someone to die is miles away from urging someone to commit suicide.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @10:26AM (2 children)
Read the post's subject.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:54PM
Frying doesn't always imply dying [huffingtonpost.com].
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:58PM
Nice trolling!
I almost fell for it - and the person who modded you up certainly did.
Kudos, have some internet points.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:00AM (1 child)
How about you post a picture of your woman so we can compare?
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:51PM
Oh, the female in my life is much more beautiful than any woman. She's an adorable black cat. I prefer her to my ex-wife.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Saturday August 05 2017, @01:34PM (2 children)
From what I have seen about this case, Michelle Carter is also depressive, like her suicidal ex-boyfriend. This is a horrible precedent. While she actively encouraged his suicide, how long will it be before any disparaging remark that causes someone to contemplate suicide becomes a crime as well? When that happens, the fact that you called her one of the ugliest women you have ever seen will be a crime.
Encouraging suicide in this case is morally repugnant. However, it should not be a crime, let alone a felony like manslaughter. If a person is crying for attention by being close to suicide, when they get the attention they don't want, it is hardly the fault of the person that gives them encouragement to do what they have in mind anyway. Even if they get someone who tells them not to go through with it, how long will it be before the next attempt if they do not get the professional help they need? The suicidal person is the one that caused the situation to happen, not the person they cried to get help from.
Michelle Carter now has to live with herself and her decision every day for the rest of her life. Believe me, remorse and regret is far worse a punishment than imprisonment can ever be. Our attempt to punish her farther is only eroding free speech... which is one of the most important rights we have even if it does come with the consequence of spreading hatred.
If you are so bad that one person's comments can make you kill yourself you need mental help. You should be able to get that help... affordably too. (Another problem in itself that needs to be solved; but, that starts getting off topic.)
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:04PM
I disagree. In her case, it's not that she encouraged him to commit suicide, but the way she did it. She purposefully pushed and encouraged him. It was not mere, "Oh, you ought to kill yourself" stuff.
As for Michelle Carter's mental health, no doubt she's a very sick woman who needs help. Perhaps she'll get it in prison, although I'm inclined to doubt it, which is a pity. However, in most cases one's mental health or rather the lack of it is no barrier to prosecution for a crime. She must have known somewhere in her mind that what she was doing was wrong on some level. She deserves to be punished.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 07 2017, @05:29PM
muh slippery slope