Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I agree. Let me back away from the Brandenburg claim, and try a different tack. I didn't mean that I thought she was guilty of incitement, I just thought there might be analogy. But the basic idea that I have is that there exist some circumstances under which an act of speech is directly and causally connected to a harmful outcome that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating, and that in some of those circumstances the state therefore has a legitimate basis to restrict those speech acts. Brandenburg hinges on the legality of the action being incited, but I was focused on the idea of causing direct harm to someone.
What interest? Is inciting people to commit suicide through speech a common problem in the US, one that is leading to social problems (asking seriously - my sense is that it is not, but don't actually know)? Will laws banning this act as an effective deterrent to this behavior? I would guess in general probably not just because of the nature of the act. Are the people doing this a threat to society who need to be locked up? I would guess usually not.
I would also be concerned about how broadly this would be applied. For instance, this is a pretty unusual case. I would think the more common ways this exemption would be applied would be to teenagers who egg on someone to do something dangerous.
Quote:
I did a little more reading and I'm not sure whether this ruling is consistent with current law. It does appear to necessitate some extension of Brandenburg. It may be that speech that causes harm is still protected. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not trying to argue the legal merits of the decision. I just think some free speech restriction in cases where someones words directly and predictably cause harm to another person could make sense, although I agree it's a bit of a slippery slope.
It sounds like I might have a narrower view of criminal punishment than you. I do not think at a first glance that we should criminalize behavior that directly and predictably causes harm to other people. Rather, I focus on the effects we hope to achieve by this criminalization - typically public safety and deterrence (I know retribution as a goal is also common, but I'm opposed). I don't find the likely effects here to be worth the harm caused by locking people up or the potentially chilling effect on speech.
Quote:
I think it's explicitly necessary to a finding of involuntary manslaughter that the "wanton and reckless" behavior caused someone's death. It's in the statue. A standard unlikely to be met with internet posting. That language in the statute doesn't apply outside those circumstances.
Poster 1. I have a history of depression and also, I think eating meat is murder.
Poster 2. Oh yeah? You should go murder yourself.
People get pretty vicious on these boards.
Quote:
You may be right, I just think it's difficult and it seems to me that there could exist some sets of circumstances where I wouldn't find a free speech defense persuasive.
My legal philosophy says that we avoid these kinds of strained interpretations of existing laws just so we can charge someone for doing something horrible and depraved. The laws are the laws. Put someone in prison if they break one of them. But I think judges or prosecutors should generally avoid trying to find novel interpretations of law with which to punish people. Especially here in the States, with our overly punitive legal system, I would not want prosecutors or judges to adopt that attitude towards people's behavior. If it is that serious a threat to public safety, then the legislature should legislate it.