Sentencing delayed in MySpace suicide case

Originally posted by harvib
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.

I think you're mis-applying the first amendment right to free speech and I think you're engaging slightly (but I don't think intentionally) in a bit of hyperbole. IF that "harsh breakup" includes some one stalking the estranged partner, mentally abusing them with the intent of creating mental anguish, and those actions lead to a mental breakdown resulting in suicide...you bet your bippies if I was setting on a jury they would be toast.

It is not acceptable to stalk and intentionally mentally torture another human being...and that's exactly what happened in this case. First amendment rights should not be stretched to cover intentional abuse.

Being a survivor of an extremely abusive marriage that involved both severe physical abuse and mental abuse, I can attest first hand that the psychological wounds induced by intentional mental abuse are deeper wounds that take longer to heal than the physical ones.

My take on this is that the neighbor deliberately with reckless disregard for human life and therefore should be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. Let's be very clear here, she maliciously bullied a depressed child and even told her to kill herself. She did kill herself shortly afterwards; because of what she said. So, harvib, would you rather live in a country where killers are punished - or those who are free? Or is punishing killers, and identity theft a bad thing, because it doesn't "respect the 1st amendment"? The 1st ammendmant should not be stretched to cover intentional abuse.

[edit on 20/5/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by harvib
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 have stated my reasoning over and over dude. I've really enjoyed our debate, but if you haven't grasped it by now, I guess I'll just drop it.

After reading thru more of the posts and pondering, I can now see how this could be considered a criminal action.

The woman knew the girl was suffering from depression yet played (hardcore) on her emotions.

Now, what if the woman knew the girl was allergic to peanuts and willfully added some into a meal they ate together and the girl died?

The second example would be clear premediatated murder. But then what do we say the first example is? Not premedatated nor murder as the woman did not know exactly how it would affect the girl (but would know feeding her peanuts could very well kill her.)

So what criminal charge on the books, or one not yet on the books could she be charged with?

The best I could come up with would be something similar to Reckless Driving. Don't quote me on this, but I believe that is a misdemeanor if no one gets hurt or dies, but turns into a felony if someone does.

In other words, as an ADULT she had reckless disregard for the mental health of the CHILD. She was reckless in her influence on a child and it resulted in a death.

Now as an adult, she had the skills to be much more ruthless then just child on child taunting/teasing etc.

I do not by any means think this should be equated to murder, but yes, the woman should take responsiblity for her actions.

Charged with Felony Endangerment to a Minor and given a short jail sentence (to ponder her stupidity) and community service and probation is what I would do if I were the judge. The Felon lable in and of itself would be a good punishment for the wicked woman.

reply to post by Valhall

It is not acceptable to stalk and intentionally mentally torture another human being...

Agreed. And I realize my stance has made some view me as supporting this woman. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If this woman spends the rest of the life behind bars because she is charged with being responsible for the death of this girl I wouldn't feel a bit sorry for her. I would how ever feel sorry for the rest of us.

There are some in this Country that speak of descent, some that speak against the status quo, some that might wish the ability to speak against politicians and corporate leaders. It scares me when precedent is being set that could curtail those freedoms. I could care less about this woman but I do care about the rest of us to be able to speak up when we see something is not right.

If precedent is set that concedes that speech can can harm and even kill then those who speak against the status quo are surely liable when a lunatic like McVeigh acts. We are now responsible for others actions.

When the Patriot Act was first introduced I argued vehemently against it. Individuals would respond with a portion of the text that stated the purpose of the legislation. My argument was that regardless of the stated intent if the legal authority or jurisdictions allowed Americans to be arrested and/or prosecuted under the act then they certainly would be. Recently the patriot act was used to arrest an American.

The concerns I have against the patriot act are the same concerns I have with speech being labeled potentially harmful or deadly. Today it may be used to prosecute poor excuses for human life but what about tomorrow when you or I might have something to say? It is the incrementalism that scares me the most.



[edit on 20-5-2009 by harvib]

Originally posted by harvib
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????

To intentially cause mental anguish to someone you know to be instable and then tell that person that they should kill themself becaue nobody likes her, falls under reckless disregard for human life.

Involuntary Manslaughter, no deals cut. Send their sorry asses to prison.

reply to post by jd140

To intentially cause mental anguish to someone you know to be instable and then tell that person that they should kill themself becaue nobody likes her, falls under reckless disregard for human life.

If that is your position I hope you understand what you are saying. Your position means that you believe and would support legislation that classifies speech as potentially dangerous even deadly. That being your position you would also have to believe that the first amendment should be removed or revised. The freedom of speech would most certainly need to be infringed.

reply to post by harvib


Whatever.

We should let this woman go even though she is guilty because if she is found guilty then it could be the end of Freedom of Speech.

Is that your arguement.

You go ahead and keep thinking that.

I want this woman in prison for a very long time.

No need to respond. I am done with you. You think how you want to think.

Since Vulcans were mentioned earlier shall i quote one of their axioms?

"The needs of the many out number the needs of the few"

The sounds cold and uncaring, however it comes from a place of deeper feeling. It is a value judgment for me. The need of many people to express themselves far out weighs one families need for justice. I myself have been the victim of bullying. I don't talk about it because it doesn't really matter much to me. It doesn't come into my decision making process. You guys want to protect your children? The irony here is you are going to destroy your child's right to self-expression. Be honest about this problem. This is truly about revenge. The parents want vengeance for their daughters suicide, society wants vengeance against a woman they feel is evil.

You cannot compare what this woman did to identity theft. Identity theft involves the theft of MONETARY assets. It's not just the act of taking a name. You cannot compare it to internet pedophiles because they are not arrested for impersonating teenagers. They are arrested for soliciting sex from minors. Was it stalking? Yes, but it wasn't physical in nature. As far as i know internet stalking is not illegal (i confess to not knowing all the laws of every state). It is against the TOS of most major social networking sites. Creating a false identity to use those said networking sites is also against the TOS. As far as i know unless it specifically states in the TOS violation of the TOS is a violation of federal or state laws then as a matter of logic no true law has been broken.

This case is being pushed because it's emotionally loaded. it involves the death of a child. What person could say "i don't care she's dead"? I don't think many of you realize just how your emotions are being used against you.

reply to post by jd140

We should let this woman go even though she is guilty because if she is found guilty then it could be the end of Freedom of Speech.

first off you have to realize this woman, as far as I am aware, is not even being charged for the death of the girl. Why? Because it has been a long American ideal that speech is not inherently dangerous or deadly.

I am not debating whether or not speech can be dangerous or deadly, maybe it can. All I am stating is that if you believe speech to be dangerous or deadly then you have to oppose the first amendment.

FWIW I hope this woman burns in hell...

Originally posted by antonia
As far as i know internet stalking is not illegal (i confess to not knowing all the laws of every state). It is against the TOS of most major social networking sites. Creating a false identity to use those said networking sites is also against the TOS. As far as i know unless it specifically states in the TOS violation of the TOS is a violation of federal or state laws then as a matter of logic no true law has been broken.

This case is being pushed because it's emotionally loaded. it involves the death of a child. What person could say "i don't care she's dead"? I don't think many of you realize just how your emotions are being used against you.

Here let me help you then,

The current US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law is found at 47 USC sec. 223.[13] The first U.S. cyberstalking law went into effect in 1999 in California. Other states include prohibition against cyberstalking in their harassment or stalking legislation. In Florida, HB 479 was introduced in 2003 to ban cyberstalking. This was signed into law on October 2003. [14] Some states in the U.S. have begun to address the issue of cyberstalking: * Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, and New York have included prohibitions against harassing electronic, computer or e-mail communications in their harassment legislation. * Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and California, have incorporated electronically communicated statements as conduct constituting stalking in their anti-stalking laws. * Texas enacted the Stalking by Electronic Communications Act, 2001. * Missouri revised its state harassment statutes to include stalking and harassment by telephone and electronic communications (as well as cyber-bullying) after the Megan Meier suicide case of 2006.[15] * A few states have both stalking and harassment statutes that criminalize threatening and unwanted electronic communications. * Other states have laws other than harassment or anti-stalking statutes that prohibit misuse of computer communications and e-mail, while others have passed laws containing broad language that can be interpreted to include cyberstalking behaviors

source

If she broke that law then that's what she should be charged with.