It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sentencing delayed in MySpace suicide case

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Angus123
 





We are all responsible for our words. That goes with the freedom of speech we cherish.


I believe what you describe is restricted speech. Free speech means we are not responsible for our words. We are responsible only for how we react to others words.




This is about what she did to a child.


Again I ask you to consider the legal precedent you are asking to be set. If you are implying she killed the child or was the cause of her death, both of those are falsehoods, the child chose to take her own life.


I'm sorry... it's not my intention to be rude. But may I ask your age?
If you truly believe that free speech means we're not responsible for our words, then I'm assuming you're still a young student. Yet you grasp the concept of legal precedent, so I'm really unsure.

Freedom of speech does not mean we aren't responsible for the things we say.
Only that we are free to say them. No freedoms we enjoy come without the price of responsibility.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by harvib]


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Angus123]




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I feel that I must chime in here. For those of you who are directly or indirectly defending this poor excuse for a human being, I ask you the following question. How many of you have gone through depression serious enough that you are put on medication or know of someone who is or has gone through that?

In cases where someone is already suffering from depression, it doesn't take a whole lot to push them over the edge. I know this because I have suffered from depression and have tried to end my own life.

In most cases of depression where the patient is prescribed medication, there is a chemical imbalance in the brain. I am usually against medication but there are certain situation in which I believe that it becomes necessary.

I was put on medication for my depression and took myself off it when I felt better. I struggle almost on a daily basis with my suicidal thoughts but I've also learned how to deal with them with the help of some very very good friends. The other difference is that I'm 35 years old and have a lot more life experience than a 13 year old girl.

Also, the mother was not just voicing her opinion (as those who are bringing free speech into this are suggesting), she was engaged in personal attacks against the young girl. Her actions would be better equated with someone is not just speaking their mind in general about homosexuals but rather someone who goes up to a homosexual and harasses them by saying very hateful things to a specific person.

You people have NO IDEA what it's like when you are already suffering from depression and someone who is close to you suddenly turns around and completely betrays you as the mother made it appear as the "boy" did. You all missed the fact that this 13 year old girl was suffering from bouts of depression serious enough that she was on medication for it.

Maybe you sympathizers with Drew should do a little research into the subject of Depression before you comment on how it was Megan Meier's "decision". It's hard enough being a 35 year old man having to deal with it, I couldn't begin to imagine what it would be like for a 13 year old.

Sorry for the rambling but this hits very close to home for me and like I said, I'm living through it so I know how hard it can be to deal with even with loving friends and family around.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


You're arguing against points I'm not even making.
I'm not saying the child was unable to choose suicide. Clearly she was.

And you were right. Her parents should have payed better attention.
We don't let kids do as they please or make any choice they want.
That's my point. They should have been more involved.

But I am saying she was shoved in that direction by an adult with evil motives.
She WANTED that girl to be hurt... at the very least emotionally... and in reality it was far worse.

Now claiming that this is a speech issue is simply not true.
She was not making a statement. She was trying to harm someone. A child at that.

Saying this could infringe upon our rights because some lawmaker may sponsor a bill making certain things illegal is just alarmism. Unless you can specifically cite an instance in which freedom of speech would be curtailed by holding this woman accountable for her actions, then your argument fails muster.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 




That kid didn't kill herself over a pack of lies. That child had deeper issues. To boil it down to a horrid woman telling lies is superficial at best. This is about free speech because this case will be used to curtail certain behaviors on the internet. As awful as these woman's lies were she is free to make them in this country. you are free to make your own choices concerning your response to those words. The girl was free to do this as well.


You are correct in stating that she didn't kill herself over a pack of lies BUT the pack of lies and the way that it was presented helped to push her over the edge. This is NOT about free speech. Like I stated above, what she did was akin to going up to say a homosexual or person of ethnic origins and calling them hurtful names and berating them. That is not covered under the freedom of speech. She was not making generalized statements but specific to Megan Meier and as I've also stated, when suffering from depression, you are not always free to make their choices on how they respond to situations. For you to say that Megan Meier was "free" to do this shows how little you know about this mental illness.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by lmbsc
This is NOT about free speech. Like I stated above, what she did was akin to going up to say a homosexual or person of ethnic origins and calling them hurtful names and berating them. That is not covered under the freedom of speech.


Oh yes it is covered by the first amendment. If you don't like it i suggest you move to the EU.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by lmbsc
This is NOT about free speech. Like I stated above, what she did was akin to going up to say a homosexual or person of ethnic origins and calling them hurtful names and berating them. That is not covered under the freedom of speech.


Oh yes it is covered by the first amendment. If you don't like it i suggest you move to the EU.


Yeah Imbsc... move to the EU. In fact, I think I will too.
The people here are ignorant of Constitutional issues and they actually seem proud of it, lol.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I guess calling people derogatory names like faggot, 'n-word', spick, cracker, towel head, haji and whatever else I left out is ok.


I guess Don Imus was stripped of his Freedom of Speech when he was forced to apologize for when he called that basketball team "nappy headed hoes".

I guess that guy who played Kramer was stripped of his Freedom of Speech when he called those African Americans "'n-word's" when he was forced to apologize.


We are held responsible for our words. This lady and her daughter did their best to cause this girl emotional pain. They even went as far as tell her that she should kill herself because nobody likes her.

Prison for the both of them. What they did to that little girl is horrible. For an adult to knowingly cause that much pain to a child is disgusting. Adults are supposed to protect children not harm them.

This isn't about Freedom of Speech. This is involuntary manslaughter. Their actions, as unintentional as it maybe, caused her to kill herself.


Edit to add-

Let it be known that I did not type out "n-word". I typed in the word and it automatically posted that way.

I guess that is impeding on my Freedom of Speech.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by jd140]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
I guess calling people derogatory names like faggot, 'n-word', spick, cracker, towel head, haji and whatever else I left out is ok.

Legally it is permissible.


I guess Don Imus was stripped of his Freedom of Speech when he was forced to apologize for when he called that basketball team "nappy headed hoes".

The pressure mounted on Imus was SOCIAL not governmental. The government of this country did not tell him he had to apologize. Your next example is also the same as Imus. He was not forced to apologize by the government. Using racial slurs is not a crime, yet.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by antonia]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 


If you are going to accuse people of being ignorant you better know the facts yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Ah so we can impede on others right to Freedom of Speech, but the government can't.

The government should uphold the constitution, but we don't have to.

Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Angus123
 


If you are going to accuse people of being ignorant you better know the facts yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...


I do... and as much fun as it's been in this remedial community college debate of yours, I really REALLY want a DQ chilli dog. See ya!



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


You are mistaken. No one impeded on their right to free speech. Imus came under immense social pressure to apologize. That was a response to what he said. Those people responding were exercising their right to free speech. His employer rather then lose ratings due to his outburst sacked him. They can fire him at will. He can still say what he wants but not on their airtime. He is not entitled to a platform. Imus didn't have to say sorry at all. Nor did Kramer, they chose to do so because of the free speech of others.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by antonia]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 





This woman deliberately attacked a young girl, which she knew had suffered from mental instability and was vulnerable to depression and possible suicide, with the sole intention of inflicting as much harm as possible.


Isn't this just speculation?

Again lets consider the legal precedent being set. It is frightening. Where is the line on where my liability ends. If I believe homosexuality to be wrong (Which I don't) and speak against and someone commits suicide am I now liable. Harsh breakups, coworkers picking on one another, etc. are all now open to prosecution depending on how individuals react to my free speech.

As for the fire example I believe the charge would be attempt to incite a riot. This case is not the same.



No, it's not speculation. The woman knew the girl for years. The woman knew about the girl's depression.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I don't mean to be harsh but are you being willfully ignorant. The 1st amendment was not written so that people could go around saying things that they KNOW will harm another person. It was written so that people would be able to have freedom of expression in civil discussions.

I think this person explains it very well, I know it's just some ones opinion but I couldn't agree any more with what they have stated.




Discussion has rules, rules that stop discussion short of a fight. These rules are civil rules known by civilized man. Discussion is to increase the knowledge base of a subject, to lead a participant to a higher level not to tear them or their subject matter down. Discussion must carry with it respect. It can not ride on the backs of a 'know it all attitude' and use various critical verbiage to belittle the person who disagrees with you. Civilized people can disagree and never offend one another. Disrespect is the art of demanding your way right or wrong. It is the act of using illegal tools to beat the other person into shame, shape or submission. This is gained by calling others names when they have simply told you they don't see an issue like you see it. It is calling others names and doing an all out campaign of disrespect against them when they call you one back in the same area, be it political, religious, military or racial. The First Amendment was not created so you could call anybody anything you wanted to. It is not there to cover the disrespectful. It is there to allow people freedom of expression in discussion or a civil manner of resistance to political, religious or racial acts. It is not to cover hate language. Any derogatory shaming and evil name calling is disrespectful and not your right under the First Amendment.

source

There was no discussion and the mother wasn't even writing anything factual. There was absolutely no purpose for what the mother was writing except to hurt the 13 year old girl

Also seeing as how you are so proud of the constitution as is stood when created I guess you think the following should still be upheld under YOUR constitution.....



Other examples of anti-slavery messages abound from the late 1700's. They illustrate the feelings of some, but those feelings cannot be seen in the product of their works at creating a government. Despite the freedoms demanded in the Declaration and the freedoms reserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, slavery was not only tolerated in the Constitution, but it was codified. The Constitution has often been called a living tribute to the art of compromise. In the slavery question, this can be seen most clearly. The Convention had representatives from every corner of the United States, including, of course, the South, where slavery was most pronounced. Slavery, in fact, was the backbone of the primary industry of the South, and it was accepted as a given that agriculture in the South without slave labor was not possible. Though slaves were not cheap by any measure, they were cheaper than hiring someone to do the same work. The cultivation of rice, cotton, and tobacco required slaves to work the fields from dawn to dusk. If the nation did not guarantee the continuation of slavery to the South, it was questioned whether they would form their own nation.

source

And by way, I'm CANADIAN so I don't have to worry about having to move in order to get away from YOUR constitution.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Oh and there is this ruling by your supreme court as well,



In 1942, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of a Jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "God dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire). The Court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas."

source

[edit on 19-5-2009 by lmbsc]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lmbsc
 


The first amendment does not differentiate between forms of speech. The case you cited is an anomaly.

From the Wiki on the case:


This two‐tier approach retains importance for those who believe that carefully crafted controls over certain categories of speech (such as pornography, commercial advertising, or abusive epithets) do not violate First Amendment guarantees. Although the Court continues to cite Chaplinsky's position on “fighting words” approvingly, subsequent cases have largely eroded its initial, broad formulation; libelous publications and even verbal challenges to police officers have come to enjoy some constitutional protection. Chaplinsky remains the last case in which the Court explicitly upheld a conviction only for “fighting words” directed at public officials.


Note it only involves PUBLIC officials and has not been used since that particular case.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by antonia]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 





Freedom of speech does not mean we aren't responsible for the things we say. Only that we are free to say them. No freedoms we enjoy come without the price of responsibility.


By your statements I am assuming you are under the belief that we are responsible for others feelings before we exercise speech. You may feel a moral obligation but I am not aware of any legal obligations as you seem to imply.

By this precedent being set it will now be up to the federal prosecutors to decide when our speech was not used responsibly. It is beyond me how this in any sense could be considered free speech. Again I assert that freedom of speech would mean you are not responsible for your words or how people react to them. Any thing that limits or restricts this is a restriction on free speech.

Maybe as a Nation we are to decide that free speech is dangerous and we must in the name of protecting our children need to restrict speech. But if this is the decision we are going to make, let's at the very least be honest with our selves.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lmbsc
 





The 1st amendment was not written so that people could go around saying things that they KNOW will harm another person.


First of all it is not physically possible to harm someone through speech. People choose how they are going to react and that decision lies with each one of us. Second it may not have been written so people could go around offending each other but it covers them.




It was written so that people would be able to have freedom of expression in civil discussions.


Actually it was most certainly written so that public descent was not made unlawful. I am not aware of anything about civility in the first amendment.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Angus123
 





Freedom of speech does not mean we aren't responsible for the things we say. Only that we are free to say them. No freedoms we enjoy come without the price of responsibility.


By your statements I am assuming you are under the belief that we are responsible for others feelings before we exercise speech. You may feel a moral obligation but I am not aware of any legal obligations as you seem to imply.

By this precedent being set it will now be up to the federal prosecutors to decide when our speech was not used responsibly. It is beyond me how this in any sense could be considered free speech. Again I assert that freedom of speech would mean you are not responsible for your words or how people react to them. Any thing that limits or restricts this is a restriction on free speech.

Maybe as a Nation we are to decide that free speech is dangerous and we must in the name of protecting our children need to restrict speech. But if this is the decision we are going to make, let's at the very least be honest with our selves.


Seriously... I have no idea how you are making these assumptions.

I'm not saying we're responsible for other's feelings. Only that our words and actions have consequences. As rational humans we have an obligation to think of others when choosing what we say and do.

And the consequence of that woman's words... words that were INTENDED TO CAUSE EMOTIONAL HARM TO A CHILD... was that child killed herself.

The government has no business censoring our speech. The Founders understood that and believed we were wise enough to measure our words ourselves when needed.

And incidentally, NOTHING in life is free from consequence.

That is the point of all this. I hope that clears it up.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Angus123
 





I'm not saying we're responsible for other's feelings.


But that is the precedent being set!




As rational humans we have an obligation to think of others when choosing what we say and do.


From a legal standpoint this is simply a falsehood. I am assuming you meant that statement as a moral ideal that you hold and one which I would agree with. However the precedent being set is one that would hold individuals criminally responsible to think of others when choosing what we say. Why does this only scare me and couple of other posters?




The government has no business censoring our speech. The Founders understood that and believed we were wise enough to measure our words ourselves when needed.


I am glad to hear you say that, however that is what you are a proponent of by supporting the prosecution of this vile, despicable human being.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by harvib]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join