Sentencing delayed in MySpace suicide case

reply to post by harvib


No... it's not setting any legal precedent at all.
The woman perpetrated a hoax in order to emotionally and quite intentionally hurt a child.
It had horrifying consequences, and she should be brought to task over it.

That is simply not 1st Amendment issue.

At any rate, I've enjoyed the debate, but it's getting close to sleepytime.
Peace!

reply to post by Angus123

No... it's not setting any legal precedent at all.

My mistake. Could you please point me to the case that did set the precedent of an individual being prosecuted for hurting someone's feelings.

I don't mean to trivialize the suicide of this individual but I would like to see the case that did set the precedent as you claim.

Edit to add: This most certainly is a first amendment issue evidenced by the fact that the precedent being set would allow prosecution of individuals using speech in ways that were previously not prosecutable. You may agree that individuals should be prosecuted for things such as "hate speech" and other uses of speech such as in this case but don't kid yourself by stating it is not a first amendment issue.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


Ugh... okay, I didn't at any point claim there was any case precedent set over someone's hurt feelings. Where did you get that?

I'm saying that what the woman did was calculated to inflict mental harm.
And that is compounded by the fact that the victim was a child.
And it clearly caused mental harm in spades.

Her being prosecuted for that act has no bearing on any 1st Amendment concerns.

reply to post by Angus123

I didn't at any point claim there was any case precedent set over someone's hurt feelings. Where did you get that?

By this statement:

it's not setting any legal precedent at all.

If this case isn't setting a precedent then a previous case must have.

Her being prosecuted for that act has no bearing on any 1st Amendment concerns.

I edited my previous post to respond to this erroneous statement but you must have already have responded before I edited it so I will restate it.

This most certainly is a first amendment issue evidenced by the fact that the precedent being set would allow prosecution of individuals using speech in ways that were previously not prosecutable. You may agree that individuals should be prosecuted for things such as "hate speech" and other uses of speech such as in this case but don't kid yourself by stating it is not a first amendment issue.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Angus123

 

I didn't at any point claim there was any case precedent set over someone's hurt feelings. Where did you get that?

By this statement:

it's not setting any legal precedent at all.

If this case isn't setting a precedent then a previous case must have.

Her being prosecuted for that act has no bearing on any 1st Amendment concerns.

I edited my previous post to respond to this erroneous statement but you must have already have responded before I edited it so I will restate it.

This most certainly is a first amendment issue evidenced by the fact that the precedent being set would allow prosecution of individuals using speech in ways that were previously not prosecutable. You may agree that individuals should be prosecuted for things such as "hate speech" and other uses of speech such as in this case but don't kid yourself by stating it is not a first amendment issue.

Just because this is not setting a precedent doesn't mean another must have been set in the past. Where did you get that?

reply to post by Angus123

Just because this is not setting a precedent doesn't mean another must have been set in the past. Where did you get that?

Due to the rarity of someones reaction to speech being grounds for prosecuting the speaker. Unless their is another case that I am unaware of then this case most certainly would set a precedent.

If you are going to argue that this case would not set a precedent please provide your reasoning.




[edit on 19-5-2009 by harvib]

I dont believe people can sit in their homes and blame this poor 13 year old girl for her actions!

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Angus123

 

No... it's not setting any legal precedent at all.

My mistake. Could you please point me to the case that did set the precedent of an individual being prosecuted for hurting someone's feelings.

There is precedent for manner of death being homicide with cause of death being suicide (by whatever physical means). And it was ruled homicide via the method of suicide by driving the victim to their own death. This is not ground-breaking. It's just new due to the use of technology. It will only set precedent in the weapon used (internet) to inflict emotional anguish leading to the death.

[edit on 5-19-2009 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall

There is precedent for manner of death being homicide with cause of death being suicide. And it was ruled homicide via the method of suicide by driving the victim to their own death. This is not ground-breaking. It's just new due to the use of technology. It will only set precedent in the weapon used (internet) to inflict emotional anguish leading to the death.

Interesting. Are you able to cite the cases or provide a source?

I have flagged this thread because I think this is something that is really starting to get out of control, and I believe we have to take note of events like this!

This poor girl (who has depression to begin with) is tormented by that horrible woman. (Who knows the girls suffers with depression)!

I think this woman should go away for murder! Who ever said psychological torture is any different from physical?

Originally posted by harvib


Interesting. Are you able to cite the cases or provide a source?

I'll try my best to find it for you. I found this several months back when I was researching the Caylee Anthony case in which the manner of death was deemed homicide, but the cause of death was deemed undetermined. I'll get back with you when I find the exact resource I found.

But for the time being, I'll leave you with this...

Homicide – “occurs when death results from… an injury or poisoning or from “…a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death. Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide.” Homicide is when a person is killed by one or more persons. This is different than murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life by another, especially with premeditated malice. For example, if a police officer kills someone in the line of duty, it is considered a homicide, but not necessarily a murder. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.

www.co.harris.tx.us...

[edit on 5-19-2009 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall



In the defense of free speech it would concern me greatly if speech could be considered "a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death."

If speech does fit this criteria then would a harsh breakup where an individual commits suicide be prosecutable? I think it would.

reply to post by harvib

We could haul people to jail for calling people fat. There are overweight people who kill themselves from the stress their peers put on them. We could throw magazine editors in jail for inducing eating disorders in girls who then die.

We could take this so many different ways. It's just crazy.

kekekeke typo night =(

[edit on 20-5-2009 by antonia]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


It's a very scary precedent. I don't think you could draw a line. All speech could be criminally prosecuted because of how people react.

Even scarier is the incremental legislation. Someday this very case may be used to justify further restrictions on freedom of speech just as some have justified this case stating previous restrictions on freedom of speech such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Angus123

 

No... it's not setting any legal precedent at all.

My mistake. Could you please point me to the case that did set the precedent of an individual being prosecuted for hurting someone's feelings.

I don't mean to trivialize the suicide of this individual but I would like to see the case that did set the precedent as you claim.

Edit to add: This most certainly is a first amendment issue evidenced by the fact that the precedent being set would allow prosecution of individuals using speech in ways that were previously not prosecutable. You may agree that individuals should be prosecuted for things such as "hate speech" and other uses of speech such as in this case but don't kid yourself by stating it is not a first amendment issue.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by harvib]

How can anyone think that going onto a website under a fictitious identity with the sole purpose of inflicting harm onto an innocent child is protected free speech? Next we can just say identity theft is protected free speech, since people should have the right to say whatever name they want to go by.

reply to post by Jessicamsa

How can anyone think that going onto a website under a fictitious identity with the sole purpose of inflicting harm onto an innocent child is protected free speech?

If we are going to protect the first amendment we must concede that speech can not harm. Any deviation from this will result in restrictions on the first amendment. This is fundamental.

This story hits me right where it hurts. I too was a victim of a friend committing suicide in the in the same format as this case. If you cause a girl to go through this much pain, and you know what you are doing, you should be charged accordingly!

reply to post by Tricky_Trish

you should be charged accordingly!

And what would that charge be?

reply to post by harvib


Involuntary Manslaughter.

reply to post by jd140


One of the requirements in order to charge someone with Involuntary manslaughter is as follows:

In the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life.

If we are to believe that speech can be either dangerous or be considered as reckless disregard for human life then we must also believe that speech should not be free. If this were the case then speech is dangerous and has the ability to kill. If this is the case speech must be regulated. Is this what we are all agreeing to??? To strike the first amendment????